David Lammy: There is no doubt that the Lindisfarne gospels are one of our greatest national treasures, and are certainly a great source of pride in the north-east of this country. The My hon. Friend will know that it is important that Ministers at the Dispatch Box always maintain the independence of the British Library and the decisions that its board feels that it needs to make about the gospels. However, I am pleased that I will meet her this week to discuss these matters in greater detail.

Richard Caborn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his supplementary question. To answer the first part of it, there are a number of applications from village halls which, because the right information has not been given, have not been granted. It is right that there is that prudence with public funds. The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter a number of occasions on behalf of his constituency—particularly in relation to Terrington St. John, which he also raised last time. That will be looked into, and has been looked into.
	As far as Manchester United and many other employers are concerned, we are trying to get corporate UK to be active—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with this—in making our nation much fitter. We are spending billions of pounds in relation to obesity. Through Sport England and the north-west regional sports board, that initiative is being tried. I congratulate people on that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that a load of village hall applications are in the pipeline. When he meets representatives of the Big Lottery Fund, will he stress the importance of supporting the over-60s at Croston village hall and any others in Chorley? Will he point out the benefits that supporting them would bring to Chorley?

Hugh Robertson: But what the Secretary of State does not answer is why the amount of money going into sport through the national lottery, according to a parliamentary written answer that she gave me, has been cut from £397 million to £260 million. A key component of the Olympic bid are the mass participation benefits that will arise from the post-games use of the stadiums. The Secretary of State gave me a personal assurance that VAT would not be levied on their construction. The organisers were clearly given the same commitment, because they made no allowance for VAT in the budget. Will she confirm to the House that a possible VAT bill of a quarter of a billion pounds will not be levied by the Treasury on the 2012 Olympics?

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, was impressed by what Ofsted, BRMP—the British Market Research Bureau, BOP—the Burns Owens Partnership, and NFER—the National Foundation for Educational Research said about children doing better and the creative industries and their workers succeeding as a result of the programme. What will happen next? It has done so well thus far, so can we have more of the same?

Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend raises an issue about which several hon. Members have been concerned. The Communications Act 2003 is critical because it prohibits radio and television advertisements being broadcast on behalf of political organisations that would
	"influence public opinion on a matter of controversy".
	The key issue is impartiality. Of course, all hon. Members support the work of Children in Need, which is clearly not a campaigning organisation for political change. I appreciate that many hon. Members, including me, support the work of Make Poverty History, but Ofcom found that the advert directed viewers to the Make Poverty History website, which encouraged them to lobby the Prime Minister and the Government directly to make the campaign a high priority on the political agenda. The organisation therefore strayed on to the ground of political partiality, and that is why I believe that Ofcom made its adjudication. I know that several hon. Members regret that and find it difficult to understand, but the matter was carefully considered in the House during the passage of the Communications Act.

Norman Baker: I am glad that the Environment Agency has not decided yet—perhaps I can influence it. May I welcome the NAO's work on the matter and express the considerable public concern in my area at the fact that the Environment Agency has run up a bill of almost £500,000 on a highly controversial scheme that has no planning permission and lacks public support in the area, where both district councils oppose it? Does not the NAO need to take steps to make it clear to unelected bodies such as the Environment Agency that it can proceed with schemes only with public support, not in the face of public opposition?

David Taylor: Further to the comment made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), perhaps the Speaker's Committee ought to consider the activities of the midlands industrial council, which, prior to the 2005 general election, pumped enormous sums of money into a range of midlands seats, all of which, coincidentally, happened to be Labour marginals, and all of which had a bigger than average swing? As a part of that covert and shady activity, some fine Members were lost.

Andy Burnham: I quite agree. It may be helpful to explain again the point that my right hon. Friend raises. In parts of the NHS, there is an unsatisfactory culture for the handling of complaints, so because patients do not receive a satisfactory response when they first make a complaint, they are pushed towards considering options such as a second stage complaint to the Healthcare Commission, or even legal action. However, as I have said before, I do not believe that anybody who makes a complaint does so with the intention of taking the NHS to the cleaners, or to make significant financial gain. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the reason people pursue complaints is "to stop it happening to somebody else", as they tell us in our surgeries—I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard that in his surgeries, as I have in mine. If the NHS was better at engaging with the patient at the point when the complaint was made, the outcome would be better all round. It would certainly be a better outcome for the individual but, ironically, also for the NHS, in that it could learn from patients' experience and try to improve it, from the point at which a complaint was received. However, I take entirely my right hon. Friend's point that the process should be clearer and simpler for the patient.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Will the Government be issuing fresh guidance about how to deal with complaints to accompany the new statutory provisions for local health authorities? Practice varies according to local health authorities, so if the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister were to give guidance locally, it would help the process.

Andy Burnham: The Bill deals with complaints of negligence where there is a liability in tort and when—as we hope—it is passed, secondary legislation will underpin it, setting out the structure under which we envisage that the scheme will operate. I feel strongly that a rethink is needed about how the NHS handles complaints in the round—not necessarily only complaints where there is a liability in tort. On Friday, I visited a trust that has adopted a much more interventionist approach, by engaging with the individual bringing the complaint to improve the patient experience and so that the trust can learn quickly what is not going right.
	In an era when there is more choice in the NHS, and patients can move around the system, the clever trusts are those that engage with complaints in that way. They are looking closely at the quality of the patient experience and using every bit of information they can get hold of to improve it. I very much go with the grain of what my right hon. Friend says. The scheme will facilitate a better culture, but I want to build on it, so that complaints are handled better.
	I was describing how we improved the Bill, and I was paying tribute to Opposition Members. I should particularly mention the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who made some very helpful suggestions during the Bill's passage through the House. To take one example of the improvements made, we included a measure that allowed investigation reports to be provided to individuals on request. It is partly on account of that amendment that I am surprised to be back discussing the Bill today; it does not appear to have been appreciated in the other place. Earl Howe spoke about the measure in the other place:
	"What have we got? We have a scheme that will see a patient's application for redress disappear into a closed process, one that is the very opposite of transparent. The patient has no idea whether the facts of his case have been looked at fairly or fully."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1240.]
	Earl Howe is a reasonable and fair-minded man, but on the basis of that comment, I am not sure that the import and effect of the amendments agreed to in the Commons were fully appreciated by their lordships. At the instigation of the hon. Member for Romsey, we made a concession and allowed full investigation reports to be made available to the individual, so it seems impossible that such comments can be made.
	We want a scheme that has transparency and accountability built into it, so today we have tabled an amendment that will further improve the accountability of the NHS redress scheme by allowing the naming of the responsible person who could be answerable if a further complaint was made to the health care ombudsman. They would have to be a person of experience and seniority, and that provision will further strengthen the scheme. Not a great deal separates the Government from the Opposition on the Bill, but our differences seem to come down to the issue of independence and independent investigation.

Graham Stuart: We are puzzled by the Government's refusal to engage with the proposal to introduce more independence, as are many outside bodies. We have tabled many probing amendments and proposals, but it is the Minister who is backed by thousands of civil servants and the Government machine. Has he genuinely tried to find a workable, cost-effective way of introducing more independence, because the current scheme does not have the confidence of Opposition Members or many outside organisations?

Andy Burnham: As I explained, we amended the Bill to improve openness, transparency and accountability for the patient concerned. Let me make it absolutely clear, however, that we do not favour an independent scheme, as we would lose the benefits of an NHS trust owning up to, and being open about, mistakes that have been made, learning from them and making changes to prevent such things happening to other people. That is preferable to a process whereby a third party is engaged to look at the trust and its performance, which would not foster the culture that we are trying to achieve. The right to an independent investigation is not affected by the scheme, as people still have the right to pursue independent legal action if, after receiving the investigation report, they are not confident that their case was adequately investigated. They retain the right to progress to an independent stage. To pull independence into the scheme would create something different, as it is a first-stage scheme. The hon. Gentleman will know that any organisation that receives a complaint conducts a first-stage investigation itself before moving to the second stage where independence comes into play. Opposition Members have confused the two notions.

Andy Burnham: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party feel that the scheme should be independent, but we are proposing something different. We are proposing that when the NHS receives a complaint, it takes ownership of it and engages positively and constructively with the individual concerned, rather than passing them from pillar to post, or, as often happens—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can give examples of this from his constituency—for the shutters to come down and people to be forced away. It is much better to encourage a local investigation, and for local learning to take place, and for there to be engagement with the reasons why an individual has presented with a complaint under this scheme. It is a different model entirely to suggest that that should be done independently.
	There have been various different suggestions, such as having redress investigators or an employed third party—although we did not find out more detail about that—and now we have the idea of having a non-executive director, perhaps from a neighbouring trust. Those options would be extremely costly and they would also not be workable.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that that does not make it right, but that is what matters in our parliamentary process—and if he has plans to change it, I would be interested to hear them. As there was a majority of 95 in favour of our proposals, having made amendments such as we did and having listened throughout the progress of the Bill, I am surprised that we are still debating it.
	Do the Opposition really think that, if a neighbouring trust looks at a complaint involving another local trust, that will give the independence that patients are looking for? As far as I can see, that would still be the NHS investigating itself. However, beyond that I am not persuaded by the Opposition's principal point. I am persuaded by a scheme where the NHS handles such situations better itself.
	I am sure that Members of all parties are united by a wish to see a better culture at the first stage when a patient brings a complaint. I am sure that we all find that patients end up in our offices because they do not receive a satisfactory response at that stage from the trust concerned. The only way to change that is to have a system in which trusts engage with complaints in a more constructive way. I fail to see how having independent investigations, where people come into the trust concerned who are not employed by the trust or are a non-executive director of another trust, would foster a better culture in handling such matters.

Andy Burnham: I believe that the amendments that we have made to the Bill give precisely that. Because patients will be able to read in full their investigation report, they will decide for themselves whether or not that investigation has credibility. If they are not persuaded that it has, their statutory rights are not affected—to use the phrase. They can pursue that case further, because they have been provided with a full copy of that report. That is why I was disappointed to read the comments of Earl Howe, who seemed not to appreciate that we are providing the full details to patients. There is not a closed process, as he described it.
	An amendment was made, in response to pressure from the hon. Member for Romsey, which is a material change to the Bill that strengthens the patient's ability to pursue their legal rights if they are not persuaded by the quality of the investigation. Such an investigation, carried out locally by a trust, would be assessed by the scheme authority—the NHS Litigation Authority—before any assessment of liability or quantum was made. It would assess the quality of that investigation and examine whether it had analysed sufficiently the questions that needed to be checked, so there would be a check on the process.
	To be honest, there is no major disagreement between us, and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Billericay—hand on heart—really thinks that there is. The scheme has been improved because of parliamentary scrutiny, but if the investigation were independent, that would create a very different scheme, and I hope that he appreciates that.
	Meaningful independent oversight will require additional resources in the form of increased staffing and additional bureaucracy to support those undertaking such oversight. They will need support staff to administer the flow of cases, and reciprocal arrangements between scheme members will need to be put in place. We should not forget that the scheme goes wider than NHS trusts and foundation trusts.
	There are many unanswered questions about how the arrangement would work in practice. During debate in another place, the noble Lord Warner asked a range of questions:
	"Does he or she"—
	the overseer—
	"sit on the shoulder of the investigator? How far do they follow through the investigation? Are they a duplicate investigator?"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1247.]
	He was right to ask those questions, but there are further questions. If an investigation is carried out by the scheme member but overseen by an independent person, will the scheme member's staff be answerable to their employer or to the independent overseer for the report's content? What if there is a conflict? What if the member carrying out the investigation and the independent overseer do not agree on the facts in the investigation report? Who resolves the conflict? All sorts of potential problems could arise. How can we possibly agree to amendments tabled and suggestions made by the Opposition when there simply is no workable detail to support the claims being made?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. We are clear that we want the establishment of this scheme to lead to a much-improved experience for the patient and to a reduction in the costs paid by the NHS in fighting clinical negligence claims. I am happy to give a commitment at this Dispatch Box to reviewing whether the scheme achieves the aims that we are setting out for it, and whether it does indeed promote a better culture in the NHS at local level to enable engagement with patient safety issues, because ultimately, that is what we are talking about. This is about clinical governance and patient safety: whether the scheme promotes a learning culture within local organisations, whether it provides a better experience for the patient seeking redress, and whether it enables trusts to reduce the amount that they pay out in fighting lengthy and often difficult legal cases.
	However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), which is a fair one. We should review the scheme to see whether it achieves the objectives that I have set out. If it does not, perhaps other options could be followed, but I have been over this ground many times in preparing for taking the Bill through this place, and I am confident that we are doing the right thing. Many trusts are already adopting a very different agenda because of issues such as patient choice and the need to look more carefully at patient satisfaction. I am confident that a change is already being effected on the ground, but I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be an ongoing review of whether that meets the stated aims.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right. My predecessor acknowledged that this scheme may, by facilitating access to redress, lead to more people bringing forward cases and fewer people abandoning cases. As the hon. Gentleman knows because he was on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, a high rate of cases are abandoned.
	The measure is not principally a cost-cutting scheme. What we want to do is reduce the money that is spent on fighting lengthy processes. That may lead to more money being paid out in redress to those patients who deserve that redress, but it should lead to a reduction—the hon. Gentleman has helpfully given me the opportunity to be clearer about this—in the costs spent in fighting a legal process. As he knows, they can be considerable.
	I was putting on record some of the complicated questions that have yet to be resolved. Someone has to have the final say and that person has to be knowledgeable about the facts of the case and the way that the investigation has been undertaken so that they are able to take decisions. It must be someone who has been involved throughout the investigation process, not simply someone who reads the final report.
	The arguments about costs and bureaucracy will not go away. We were told in another place that surely the cost implications are de minimis, but members will still have to carry out their own investigations so there will be duplication and therefore extra costs. Members will not hand over responsibility to another trust.
	I have described the improvements that we have made to the Bill as it has gone through this House. I again pay tribute to colleagues who helped us in that process. As a result, patients will be given their investigation report—let me be absolutely clear about that—and they will also be given a report on the action to be taken to prevent the same mistake from happening again. That, in my view, is overwhelmingly what patients want. It will be a transparent process; patients will know full well whether the facts of their case have been looked into fairly and fully.
	We agree with Opposition Members that the scheme will be given credibility by an open and robust investigation, but we have already provided for that. Credibility will not be given by one scheme member investigating another. We have also tabled an amendment that specifically enables a scheme to provide for investigations to be overseen by a person of a specified description. That overseer will not be independent, but the amendment demonstrates further our commitment to ensuring a thorough local investigation. The scheme can specify the qualifications and experience that the person who oversees the investigation by the scheme member at the local level must have. That will benefit patients. They will know who has overall responsibility for the investigation into their case and who to contact about their investigation.
	I believe that I have been over most of the ground that we have covered and I hope that I have put before the House some of the areas where we have made changes and have sought to be reasonable. I am concerned that the amendments that we passed on Report were not fully appreciated by another place and I urge it to consider the fact that they were passed by a significant majority in this House. I hope that, following today's proceedings and the amendment that we are making to further improve the accountability of the NHS redress scheme, the scheme will now move forward and do what we want it to do—get on with the job of building a better and more responsive complaints-handling process at local level in the NHS and provide a much more satisfactory outcome to patients who bring forward the complaints that we, as Members of Parliament, have to deal with.

John Baron: As the House well knows, the NHS Redress Bill returns, having been amended in the House of Lords. This is the second time that the House of Lords has rejected the Government's proposal. More than 30 Cross-Bench peers voted for our amendment, whereas only one voted against it. That sends a clear signal that our amendment was passed because it is right in principle. It is about patient interests, not party politics.
	As we all know, clinical negligence is a mess. We can all agree on that. It is complex, unfair, slow, costly and wasteful. We welcome the Government's attempts to address those problems but are concerned that the balance between the interests of patients and the health service, as envisaged by the Government, is not right. The redress scheme proposes a genuine alternative for the high volume of modest value cases. We fully support those good intentions and want the Bill to succeed, but the Government's proposals are fundamentally flawed and do not best serve patient interests.
	Time and time again, patients tell us that they want an explanation of what went wrong and an apology if appropriate. They want to ensure that lessons are learned for the benefit of others. Compensation does not necessarily rank high in people's priorities. The Government's amendments do not, in our view, best meet those priorities. As the Minister has highlighted, the reason for that revolves around the issue of independence. The reason why the Bill has been sent back to us by the House of Lords is because their lordships believe that the investigation of facts under the scheme ought to be independent of the trust in question, whereas the Government believe that it ought to be a completely in-house process. Their lordships are right. Patients will not have confidence in an in-house system. That is why we shall oppose the Government's solution.
	Opposition Members believe that the investigation should be overseen by someone who is independent and unconnected with the trust and with the NHS Litigation Authority. To us, independence is a fundamental principle of natural justice that is enshrined in the rule against bias: no man should be judge in his own case or cause. That avoids a conflict of interest. That is the one common concern of the many organisations outside this place that we have consulted. Even within this place, the Constitutional Affairs Committee, in its report, "Compensation culture", last March, stated:
	"We are concerned that if the organisation which is responsible for defending trusts and hospitals is also charged with running the scheme, there may be a perception (whatever the reality) of a conflict of interest."
	That is terribly important. We can all agree that the interests of the patient must come first, but the best way of guaranteeing those interests is to ensure that the investigation is independent so that it has credibility.

Andy Burnham: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Given that this is a first stage complaints process, can he name one other public body, or any other organisation at all, that has independent investigation at the first stage?

John Baron: The Minister is going back on himself in one respect, because the whole point of the scheme is that it should provide a genuine alternative to litigation. One key reason why people go to court is because they want to establish the facts in an independent manner. If this scheme is meant to be a genuine alternative to litigation, we should introduce that concept of independence in the scheme itself. Most organisations outside this place would agree with that. It is important to recognise that, if the scheme is an alternative to going to court, we should have regard to that basic need. Patients go to court because they want an independent assessment of the facts. I am afraid that the Government's proposals fail to recognise that basic point.
	I suggest to the Minister that independence is important for another reason. We all want to help to bring about a cultural change within the NHS towards greater openness and transparency. What could be more open and transparent than inviting someone who is independent of the trust to oversee the investigation into all the facts? To most objective observers, a trust investigating itself will not necessarily lead to a cultural change. After all, that can happen now without the Bill: trusts can already investigate themselves and the NHS Litigation Authority can already make an offer of compensation. The Bill does not change that, yet the Government suggest that we need the scheme to encourage such a cultural change.
	By contrast, what seems to be more important to the Government—the Minister has been honest enough to admit this at the Dispatch Box, as he has before—is the ownership of the process itself. They freely concede that the scheme is not independent. As the Minister clarified, the amendment in lieu would not introduce the concept of independence in any way. The Minister argues that, if trusts have ownership, they will somehow be more likely to bring about a cultural shift in openness and transparency. Most people will find that entirely contradictory. The Government are trying to put the cart before the horse. NHS ownership of the scheme might be appropriate for a health system that is characterised by openness and transparency, but it will not in itself get us to that point, as history has shown.
	As we have heard, the Government wish to introduce elements of independence, rather than to embrace independence itself. It might be worth while for the House to scrutinise quickly those elements of independence. The Government suggest that legal advice will be available prior to any offer. We are happy with the concept of legal advice being made available at the time of an offer because legal rights would be considered at that point, but giving legal advice prior to an offer will not make the investigation of the facts independent. Such legal advice will introduce adversarial elements, even though legal rights are not being determined. It will cause a replication of the cost and complexity of litigation.
	The Government also argue that the scheme will make available expert advice, but such advice should be independent anyway. We do not need a scheme to make medical expert advice independent. Meanwhile, it is not clear whether medical reports will consider fact, fault, causation and condition, or whether they will be disclosed.
	The Government suggest that the fact that patients will be able to complain to the ombudsman is another important aspect of independence. However, that applies to complaints of maladministration, rather than substantive investigations of the facts. The Government also point out that, if patients are not happy with the findings of the scheme, the courts will be available. Perversely, that shows the failure of a scheme that purports to provide a genuine alternative to litigation. Advancing such an argument almost defeats the purpose of the scheme itself.
	Unless an investigation of the facts has a badge of independence to reassure patients, the scheme will add nothing whatsoever to what can already happen. As we have mentioned, NHS trusts already have the ability to investigate themselves and the NHSLA has the power to make an assessment of liability and, when appropriate, offer compensation. I put it to the Minister that, unless the Government concede on independence—I do not expect that they will—the Bill will be a wasted opportunity in many respects.
	I wish to touch briefly on separation because I think that it is relevant to independence. The scheme must be a two-stage process with a strict separation between the functions of fact-finding and fault-finding. An investigation of what happened should not be contaminated by considerations of who was to blame. There is ample legal authority for the rationale of such separation—the principle behind the Inquiries Act 2005 and the coroners' courts—so it is happening throughout the country.
	There is also ample case law of the Court of Appeal that recognises the rationale for the separation of fact-finding from determination of legal liability. We envisage a wide-ranging inquiry that may consider matters of medical professional practice, but does not consider issues of legal liability. That limitation is appropriate because the inquiry is not a court: legal rights are not being defended or asserted.
	The Government appear to concede that there is, in practice, a two-stage process in which fact-finding and fault-finding are separate. In Standing Committee, the Minister said:
	"The scheme, as envisaged, would separate fact-finding from fault-finding in that, locally, it is for the NHS body to carry out the investigation into the facts, and it is then for the scheme authority to consider whether there is liability and, if so, what it should be."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 June 2006; c. 67-68.]
	The Secretary of State made a similar point in this Chamber on Second Reading.
	Does the Minister stand by those remarks? Will he guarantee that there will be a separation of functions between the trust investigating what happened and the NHSLA considering issues of liability? Will he confirm that the body responsible for defending the NHS against claims—the NHSLA—will have no role in determining the facts of the case? I invite the Minister to respond now to those questions.

Andy Burnham: I clarify again that the report would be the product of the local investigation carried out by the trust. I would encourage trusts to go further than simply laying out the facts. If they wanted to make an apology to the patient at that stage or explain what process changes have been made to prevent the same thing happening again, it would be right and proper for them to do that. I would encourage them to do so, rather than delivering a mechanistic report dealing solely with the facts of the case.

John Baron: I am happy to agree with the Minister. I do not think we have ever disagreed on that point. The trust's role is also to give an explanation and an apology, if appropriate. I thank the Minister for clarifying that the report will cover the investigation undertaken by the trust into the facts. That is extremely important.
	I know that others wish to speak, so I shall touch briefly on one or two related issues. We all agree that legal advice should be available at the point when an offer of compensation or settlement is made, since legal rights may be determined if they are waived as part of a compromise agreement. However, in an attempt to bolster the independence and credibility of their scheme, the Government have proposed that free legal advice should be made available before legal rights are determined.
	That, in our view, will merely encourage confusion between fact-finding and fault-finding within the scheme, for it is the job of lawyers to assert or defend legal rights. Our concern is that accusations of blame will contaminate the fact-finding process. That will lead, in contrast to what the Minister suggests, to a more closed and defensive culture among NHS staff. As a result, important lessons may not be learned. Such an approach contradicts the Secretary of State's opinion on Second Reading that lawyers should be kept out of the investigation.
	In our view, lawyers are not required during the fact-finding investigation, since legal rights are not being asserted or defended. Much has been made of the contribution of so-called specialist lawyers. The Minister referred to
	"a specialist quality mark in clinical negligence."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1563.]
	Policy and decision making must be based on evidence. I am not aware of evidence of better success rates of specialist lawyers.
	The evidence that I have seen tends to show that their success is comparable to non-specialists. Action against Medical Accidents—AvMA—makes the following statement in its promotional literature:
	"The evidence shows that specialist solicitors are much more likely to make an accurate assessment of the chances of success in claiming compensation for clinical negligence".
	I have asked AvMA to produce the evidence, which it has been unable to do. It should make it clear in its promotional literature that there is no evidence to substantiate its claims. I believe it will eventually be required to do that. That is important, because if the Government seek to bolster the independence and credibility of the scheme by involving specialist lawyers, the performance of such lawyers must be measurable and stand up to independent scrutiny.

Sandra Gidley: I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who has gone into the issues in some depth. It is a good job that I did not prepare such a lengthy and in-depth speech, because I would not have had time to deliver it.
	There is broad agreement on the general principles of the Bill, which has been welcomed in all parts of the House. It is right and proper that patients are encouraged to complain and that trusts are engaged proactively in that. However, throughout the Bill's passage, Liberal Democrat Members have tried hard to establish two clear principles: a clear separation between fact-finding and fault-finding, and the independence of the process. It has become gradually more apparent that the Government intend that investigations should be thorough and that all the facts should be established before an inquiry is handed over to the next stage. We would prefer a slightly more rigid separation, but we can broadly agree that everything is moving in pretty much the right direction. However, there remains a problem with the NHS Litigation Authority taking over at that stage, because its job is, in effect, to protect the NHS from over-large claims and often to challenge such claims. Rightly, part of its remit is to protect the public purse, but that seems counterintuitive as regards the stated aim of the Bill, which is to be on the side of the patient. Many patient groups perceive the NHSLA to be on the side not of the patient but of the NHS. However, this is not the place to rehearse those arguments at length.
	In the time that I have left, I want to concentrate on the outstanding point of difference—independence. During the Bill's passage, there have been numerous attempts to introduce different mechanisms for dealing with that problem that the Minister could accept. He has been generous in other parts of the Bill, so I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he seems to be bogged down in those mechanisms and has found fault with each idea without recognising the broad principle. When we saw the Government's amendment, our first thought was that it could represent a concession whereby the Government could introduce independence if they so wished, but sadly that has proved not to be the case.
	If the Minister will not listen to Opposition Members on this matter, perhaps he will be more persuaded by others. When the Bill was introduced, the Patients Association said:
	"The Government has shied away from the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations, only two years ago, and wants to introduce a system that is unfair, is not independent and less rigorous."
	Dr. Gerard Panting of the Medical Protection Society made a slightly different point when he said that, for the NHS redress scheme to command the confidence of both the public and of health care professionals, it is important that independent advice is available. Most of the patient groups that I have spoken to have expressed concern that an in-trust investigation would not be independent.
	People with real expertise have been involved with this Bill in the other place, including my noble Friend Baroness Neuberger, who said:
	"The Minister will forgive me if I go back to an earlier time in my life, when I was part of the advisory group that worked up the previous complaints system. We all, in good faith, believed that an in-house complaints investigation system could work. He will also know, because this will have landed on his desk now and in previous incarnations, that we were wrong. As an NHS chairman, like the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I chaired a community health service NHS trust and had to sign off the letters responding to complaints. Very often, I felt that the trust investigated itself fairly. Sometimes I did not. Either way, it was equally clear that the punters outside—the patients and their families—were dissatisfied because no one outside had had a proper look."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1243.]
	Clearly that is something that we want to avoid. I believe that the Minister is well intentioned, but I hope that he will learn from the experience of others that this provision is potentially flawed.
	An independent overseer would be in a better position to identify the organisational dysfunctions that we must acknowledge occur in some organisations. I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will review the issue. Will he describe the time scale involved? Will he also consider introducing either a pilot scheme or enabling legislation so that trusts may choose whether to have an independent overseer? Alternatively, there could be a few experimental areas in which independence is tried out, so that when the system is reviewed, we can make a full comparison to determine which method works best in the interests of patients.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL  [LORDS]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL  [LORDS]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (WALES) BILL  [LORDS]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 and 52.

Douglas Hogg: I am not against the docking of the tails of working dogs; indeed, in many cases it is wholly appropriate, but I want to say a few words about amendment No. 2. I would prefer to leave the question of identifying types to the discretion of the veterinary surgeon. However, that will not be the impact of the amendment.
	As I understand it, the authority will, by regulation, determine whether a dog is capable of falling within the classification "working dog"—that it is of a type. That may not be particularly difficult when one is dealing with pure breeds, but it becomes very difficult when dealing with crosses, especially when somewhere down the track the grandsire or the grandmother is a spaniel.
	The proposed procedure is curious, because I do not see how the regulating authority will be able to define a dog, other than a pure bred animal, as a type capable of falling within the classification "working dog". That is not leaving things to the discretion of the veterinary surgeon, as the Minister suggested; it gives the definitional function to the authority and it is not easy to perform that function other than in relation to pure breeds.

Norman Baker: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I accept that a problem will inevitably occur if exceptions are made. The House has decided to make an exception to allow some tail docking so a definitional problem must automatically follow.
	I normally agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his analysis of such matters, but in this case it depends on the regulations. Flexibility for veterinary surgeons could be built into the regulations—indeed, it would be extraordinary if it were not—so we should wait until they are published before making a judgment. However, although I agree that it is important that such matters are as clear as possible, it is also important that we do not end up with bad law, such that a vet could regard an animal as a working dog but would not be allowed to make that judgment due to the drafting of the regulations. In a sense, this discussion is about what the regulations might say, and the Minister and his officials will no doubt take it into account when they are drafted.
	I should like to respond to the Minister's opening remarks. He has dealt with the Bill in a welcome manner, and the measure is better for the open response that he and his officials showed.

Bill Wiggin: The subtle changes to the wording of the provisions for making regulations under the legislation are important, as they appear to widen the scope for consultation. The Opposition have pushed for similar measures throughout, especially in Committee, when the Minister reassured us that such technical amendments were not necessary. It is important when drafting regulations and codes that everyone with an interest in those matters should have their say and not be excluded. Members with a keen interest in this Bill will have been lobbied on various provisions by a wide range of people and organisations, and by considering all those views we have managed to produce a better Bill.
	I wish to sound a note of caution, however, about the amendments and the question of whom the Minister chooses to consult. The Bill is improved by the requirement that the Secretary of State consult individuals
	"appearing to him to represent any interests concerned",
	as opposed to consulting
	"such persons about the draft as he thinks fit" .
	I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that he will consult individuals who do not necessarily represent a specific organisation or interest, too, and consider their views. If the Lords amendments shift the emphasis from individuals to delegates and representatives, someone who wants to be heard must be backed by a group. That is fine, unless individuals are prevented from participating in the consultation, because they are not part of a group. I am sure that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
	It is important to conduct a thorough consultation on the future codes and regulations on which much of the legislation depends and on which owners, inspectors, prosecutors and the courts will base their decisions. We must wait for the individual animal codes to see how we can ensure that our cats have enough mental stimulation and are not too fat or too thin. We must wait to see the status of animals in circuses and the definition of pet fairs. We must wait, too, for the codes and regulations that govern the welfare of racing greyhounds. There is tremendous pressure on the Minister to produce those codes sooner rather than later, and I am pleased that he has already prioritised greyhounds. There is a need for action now, as the stories in the newspapers over the summer about the killing of tens of thousands of dogs demonstrated. I hope, however, that the extra time will be used wisely for a thorough consultation and scrutiny by Parliament.
	It would be helpful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the production of those codes and regulations, and tell us which working groups he has established. In Committee, he could not tell us how many codes of practice he intended to introduce. Will he sketch out his ideas for pre-legislative scrutiny of the codes, which are subject to negative resolution? I hope that there will be no need to pray against them. Will he explain how consistency will be maintained across Great Britain in producing regulations and codes, as Scotland has a different Act and Wales can produce its own secondary legislation? With regard to his earlier responses, different definitions could apply to the docking of working dogs in Wales. I hope that we will have an opportunity for helpful pre-legislative scrutiny before the codes are introduced in statutory instruments, and I hope that he can reassure me about the importance of allowing individuals to take part in consultation.

Ann Widdecombe: I shall concentrate on two issues. First, regulations are usually designed to give effect to a Bill that has been agreed to by the House and the measures contained therein, but in respect of pet fairs, the Government have radically changed their position from that which they set out when they initially brought the Bill before the House, and the banning of pet fairs is not in the Bill. Therefore, in many ways we are completely at the mercy of the Government in respect of what they do with regulations on this matter, because there is nothing in the Bill to guide them.
	I have been very concerned about the Government's attitude towards pet fairs throughout. I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who said that this is a most important Bill and that people with an interest in animal welfare will welcome it. Those of us with an interest in animal welfare were baffled, however, at the original decision that pet fairs would not be banned. We were further concerned when the current situation was tested to the limit in June of this year when the Parrot Society UK—apparently acting on the advice of somebody in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom it is said has been involved in the drafting of this Bill—organised a one-day public bird sale to test the state of the law and proclaimed that the birds were not pet birds, but were breeding birds.
	When there are such ways of getting around the law—or of attempting to do so—I am somewhat dubious about the whole of this business being left to regulations, although I accept that I am now faced with a fait accompli. As I understand it, the Minister is proposing that new measures will be laid in regulations permitting occasional private and non-commercial sales between hobbyists. I think that most of us could say, "Yes, that is perfectly reasonable.", but we should look at the way that the law was circumvented—or the way that an attempt was made to do so—with that parrot fair. Thousands were in attendance; it was not a hobby fair at all. Therefore, we need to be assured that these regulations will be extremely tight, and that there will be a good opportunity for this House to examine them before they just get relegated to statutory instruments, when it will all become a fait accompli.
	The second thing that I am particularly concerned about is the codes. I have looked at the draft code: I have looked at it, I have blinked in disbelief and I have read it again. Apparently, I, as a cat owner, who has had cats that have lived to be 23 before now—

Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly said that this is a good Bill which is welcomed in all parts of the House, but ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have taken on trust promises from the Government to introduce codes on a range of matters that are of great concern to Members in all parts of the House, and we have not disbelieved the Minister's integrity or his intention to introduce them. We were told, cliché notwithstanding, that this was not going to be a "Christmas tree Bill"—a phrase used regularly in Committee and even on Second Reading. However, we must ensure that these codes are introduced quickly and as a matter of priority, as people would wish—I concur that the issue of greyhounds also needs to be dealt with speedily—and, to pick up on the point just made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that they are well written. I have no idea how much my cats weigh, either, and I have no intention of finding out.
	We must press the Minister this afternoon for some indication of what he is doing about these outstanding matters. He was good enough to say in his introductory remarks that he would give such an indication, and I assume that, as we are discussing codes, he feels that this is the appropriate time to do so. Although we have made welcome significant progress in a number of areas, even at this very late stage in the Bill's consideration—at five minutes to midnight—there remain unresolved issues on which it is not quite clear where the Government are going. For example, the situation regarding circuses has, if anything, become less rather than more clear as a consequence of the Bill's passage through the Lords. Lord Rooker said that
	"we have given a commitment to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1002.]
	But between Report and Third Reading, he wrote to peers saying,
	"It is not correct to say the remit of the group"—
	the group being set up by the Government—
	"is to examine which species should be banned from performing".
	Those two statements could be read as being slightly contradictory, and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the position this afternoon.
	Can the Minister also say whether, ultimately, the codes will consider issues such as training and performance, which the circus working group appears not to have taken on board? It is a question not simply of the winter conditions in which animals are kept, but how they are performed—or otherwise—and trained. The Minister will know that there are significant concerns about the training methods used in circuses; indeed, that is one reason why many of us feel uncomfortable about animals being in circuses in the first place. I hope that the Minister can offer some clarification.
	The Minister will also be aware that minimum display pen sizes are an issue. I hope that they will feature in the regulations, notwithstanding the light touch that, in theory, I endorse. Those of us who advocate a light touch also want some detail on issues such as pen sizes, given the current significant variation between the average circus pen size and—if we are comparing zoo licensing conditions with circuses, as the Minister has considered doing—the average zoo outdoor pen size.
	The Minister has still some way to go to achieve the conditions that I would like to see, which, with the possible exception of dogs and horses, is an end to performing animals in circuses. There is even more need to provide clarification of the Government's intentions, which are still not entirely clear even at this late stage of the Bill.
	In common with the Minister and the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I should like to mention greyhounds. I hope that the Minister will confirm that their welfare is a priority for his codes and that the matter will be dealt with sooner rather than later, particularly given, as the hon. Member for Leominster said, some of the terrible stories that appeared in the national press over the summer. I do not know whether I should declare an interest, but my brother breeds greyhounds—[ Interruption.] He does; one cannot be judged by one's family. My brother tells me that he is concerned by the existing loopholes and he wants them closed. I know from someone I know in the industry that there is concern about those matters. Those who act responsibly in the industry, as much as those outside it, want the provisions tightened up.

Norman Baker: He has not given me any tips, but if he does, I shall communicate them in due course.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to pet fairs. We should be grateful that the Government have moved on this issue as their position was unsustainable in the early stages. They have listened, but there are still problems with the types of events that are referred to and there are gaping loopholes. It is all very well to say that the commercial sale of animals will be prohibited—we can all agree with that—but what is and is not a commercial sale? Who is going to police the provision and who will determine what is such a sale? We need a law that we not only agree with philosophically, but that can be understood and enforced by the enforcement agencies and can be interpreted by the courts. I am not sure that we have got that for pet fairs.
	We have the unsatisfactory position by which the Pet Animals Act 1951 is subject to varying interpretation by local authorities. This is the opportunity to sort that out once and for all and arrive at a position with which people agree. I fear that we will not do that.

Norman Baker: We could, indeed, end up with that, but I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I went on about devolution in too much detail. We will have problems, but it is an inevitable part of devolution. It is not a reason not to have different rules by which the Scots and the Welsh are entitled to express their opinions and form their own legislation. For the purpose of England at least, I hope that we have a clear answer from the Minister that gives us confidence not only that the will of the House is being met but that codes will be drawn to be enforceable.

David Lepper: Although I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, like the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I was one of those who spent many happy and sometimes fraught hours a couple of years ago on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee considering the draft Bill and making proposals about the legislation. I am therefore pleased to be here today to consider the last stage of the Bill's passage through the House.
	Like others, I welcome the Bill as landmark legislation of which the Government and all those involved in its framing can be proud. Although I welcome the Minister's comments about the scrutiny of regulations and the written announcement on the Government's attitude to pet fairs that he made on, I believe, 10 October following the Stafford pet fair judgment, I wish briefly to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).
	I assure the Minister that there will be many Members of the House, and many organisations and individuals outside it, who will look carefully at the regulations in relation to pet fairs. I am one of those who wish that the Government had taken the opportunity to interpret what many of us felt was the existing law in the way in which some local authorities have been interpreting it for years: that is, to say that pet fairs are against the law and should not be licensed. Unfortunately, there was inconsistency. Now we have a kind of consistency in the Government's proposals in that commercial pet fairs and markets are not to be licensed, but those organised by groups of hobbyists and specialist societies concerned with a particular breed or species of animal might well be able to find themselves with a licence.
	I am afraid that the sad history of pet fairs leads me to believe that there will be many people who will do their utmost to circumvent those regulations. Many people with informed views on the subject believe that, not only would that bring the law into disrepute, it may have sad consequences for animal welfare itself, because of the conditions that exist at many pet fairs that have taken place in the past. I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their position during the course of the consideration of the Bill.

David Drew: Like my hon. Friend, I spent many an hour on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is interesting that the Government basically stopped all shows during the time when there was a big threat of avian influenza. In these days when animal diseases are much more prevalent, the issue is about not just animal welfare, but its interconnectedness with the fact that there is a threat if there are large numbers of birds or animals together. Does he agree that the Government ought to bear that in mind?

Shona McIsaac: As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is a major step forward for animal welfare, because it updates 100-year-old legislation. We should be proud of that, but as others have said, we will be relying on regulations, which causes me some worry. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, if there is concern about a regulation that has been tabled, there is little that we can do about it. I was thus also going to suggest that drafts of such regulations should be produced before they are finally tabled to allow comment and consultation. That would allow the organisations involved in discussions to point out possible flaws and problems with the regulations.
	I am worried about circuses, although I will not make a lengthy speech on the subject. Contradictory comments have been made about the pathway of the discussions that are under way. I know that there is worry about the discussions on drawing up the regulations, so it would be useful to see regulations in draft before we finally approve them.

Ann Widdecombe: I am sure the Minister will appreciate that one gets fat not just as a result of what one eats, but as a result of not exercising. Whereas some cats love to go out hunting, there are other cats like mine that prefer to curl up and sleep.

Bill Wiggin: I am pleased with inclusion of the provision whereby a person may appeal an order of a magistrates court and be reimbursed of expenses incurred, but I have a few questions for the Minister. Why are the Government using amendments Nos. 26 and 47 to change the term "costs" to "expenses"? What is the difference between the two? Why does amendment No. 48 change the word "sum" in clause 40 to the word "expenses"? On amendment No. 31, what is reasoning behind changing the term "pay a sum representing" in clause 32 to the term "reimburse"? Why do amendments Nos. 32 and 40 remove the enforcement of the reimbursement away from one imposed on conviction?

Norman Baker: Lords amendment No. 66 deals with:
	"Functions in connection with entry under section 19".
	It set out powers including the power to
	"inspect an animal found on the premises",
	the power to
	"remove a carcass"
	and the power to
	"take a photograph of anything on the premises."
	However, I do not see a power for anyone executing a warrant to remove an animal thought to be in need of urgent treatment. I assume that that is not covered by the power to inspect an animal found on the premises. There should be a facility to remove an animal for further treatment. Perhaps that is covered elsewhere in the Bill and I have missed it, but it is certainly not included in this amendment. I would be grateful for the Minister's comment on this question.
	In Lords amendment No. 64, sub-paragraph (3) states:
	"An application for a warrant shall be made without notice".
	Perhaps that is just traditional drafting, but I would have thought that the words "may be made without notice" would be more appropriate. Otherwise, if notice were given by accident, the warrant might not be granted. That would be rather peculiar. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point as well.

Ben Bradshaw: With leave of the House, I should like to respond first to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I am afraid that I cannot confirm whether a person will need to be named in the circumstances that he outlined. However, under paragraph 3, the warrant holder will have to be named. If I can clarify the matter further by writing to the hon. Gentleman after the debate, I will endeavour to do so.
	In response to the question by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about Lords amendment No. 66, I think that the provision looks more significant than it actually is. The measure is purely to ensure consistent drafting. It will give inspectors who enter premises in an emergency the powers of search and seizure, but it does not make substantive changes. It will serve two purposes. The first is to ensure that, when an inspector enters premises to search for an animal in distress, he has the power to inspect the animal when he finds it. This is a necessary prerequisite to exercising all the other emergency powers in clause 18, including the power of removal to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
	The second purpose is to give inspectors limited powers to gather evidence. As drafted, the powers to remove carcases and to take photographs are limited to occasions on which the inspector has entered either under warrant under clause 22, now clause 23, or to conduct a routine inspection under clauses 25 to 28, now clauses 26 to 29. We recognise that, if an inspector has already entered premises using his clause 19 powers, to have to leave and obtain a warrant under clause 22 and return would be impractical and a waste of resources as well as giving rise to the risk of evidence being destroyed. The Lords amendments are intended to ensure that the inspector can exercise limited evidence-gathering powers, even though he has entered the premises primarily for the purpose of alleviating an animal's suffering.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendments considered.

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mike O'Brien: We have listened carefully, during the course of debates, to the concerns raised in this House and in the other place about the proposed extension of the conditional cautioning to include punitive conditions. Those concerns centred on the discretion that would be available to prosecutors, particularly with respect to financial penalties. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place to deal with that.
	The amendments achieve four objectives. First, they reduce the maximum amount of any required financial penalty from £500 to £250. Secondly, they provide that the financial penalties can be used only in respect of a set of offences specified in secondary legislation. Thirdly, they require that secondary legislation must specify in relation to each offence the maximum penalty for that offence or group of offences. The prosecutor would have some discretion to set a lower financial penalty than would otherwise be attracted by the offence in question—for example, to take account of the offender's ability to pay. There will therefore be a maximum for that particular offence according to the prosecutor's judgment about offender's being able to pay. Finally, the amendments make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure any proposed changes to the maximum hours—set at 20 in the Bill—that an offender can be required to attend at a specified place and to the maximum financial penalty of £250.

Mike O'Brien: Before I do so, may I deal with another matter? On 24 October, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked me whether a person could get a conditional caution for burglary and I said that we were essentially looking at petty offences and that it would not be our intention for burglary, especially residential burglary, to be included. That is indeed the case and we do not intend to include commercial burglary either. That remains true, but my officials reminded me this morning that breaking into a garden or allotment shed might, depending on the seriousness, result in a conditional caution. We noted cases in the pilots where a couple of people were seen walking down a road after removing a bicycle from a shed, breaking a lock in the process. They were arrested and dealt with through a conditional caution, one of the conditions being to compensate the shed's owner for the cost of the lock. The owner accepted that and was pleased to receive the compensation. The defendants obviously accepted the conditional caution, too. I just wanted to put that on the record before giving way

Edward Garnier: It seems to us that an important principle is at stake here that Parliament should uphold—that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute and our courts, whether it be magistrates courts or Crown courts, should try a case on evidence, convict or acquit and sentence where appropriate. Our courts should not prosecute and our police and prosecutors should not sentence. Conditional cautions breach that principle, since they give the power of sentencing to agencies other than the courts. I want to see justice in the court room, not at the cash point and I want the separation between the police, the prosecution and the courts maintained.
	The analogy made previously between the penal aspects of a conditional caution and a fixed penalty notice is not strictly accurate, but it will, for now at least, have to do. I accept that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good and that the concession on conditional cautions made by the Government in the other place has to some extent mitigated the most offensive elements of the scheme. I congratulate my noble Friends on their achievement and, indeed, the Government on having the good sense to agree to a compromise. I am content, if not deliriously happy, to accede to the Government's motion.

Lynne Featherstone: Although the Government tabled some amendments in the other place to address some of the concerns of Opposition Members, we remain concerned that the proposals herald a shift in British justice, with the prosecution effectively setting the sentence. Another concern is that, under these proposals, criminals may be able to afford to buy their way out of a criminal conviction. The maximum fine has been lowered, which we welcome, but the principle remains.
	In passing, I note a comment by Lord Goldsmith in the other place about the efficacy of the pilot schemes. He said:
	"There has not been enough time to reach any conclusions on the reoffending rate, but the scheme has been operating in parts of the country sufficiently to know that it is well worthwhile—I have had that directly from those operating it, who have also reported to me what the victims involved have said".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 129-30.]
	That evidence is hardly convincing enough to persuade that the good done is so compelling in benefiting the public interest truly to win the argument. It could be argued that the exact opposite is the truth. Because a fine can be paid—possibly without further ado—for what amounts to a criminal conviction with no criminal record being held, the public may be at greater risk. There will be no criminal record, yet the person has admitted guilt to a criminal offence.
	I also remain concerned about the switch from the original purpose of a conditional caution, which was rehabilitation. Are we changing behaviour? That is the all-important factor. Surely we would all regard the change of behaviour as the real measure of success, and the pay-and-go policy will not change behaviour. However, Lord Goldsmith acknowledged that the Bill may not be drafted perfectly in that it could be interpreted as imposing a fine without additional conditions pertaining to rehabilitation or reparation. He inferred that that was not the intention and stated:
	"If that is noble Lords' only concern, we may be able to give further thought to that".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 133.]
	I encourage the Government to do so because, without that clarification, our concerns remain that they may be creating a two-tier system of justice—one for the rich and one for the poor.
	The Government are seeking to speed up the justice system for low-level crimes and we support that intention. Our concerns and criticisms have been directed to ensuring that what changes are made to our criminal justice system achieve the right result, rather than create unintended consequences and problems in dealing with what is a real issue for people throughout the country: dealing with antisocial behaviour speedily through the criminal justice system. The guiding light in all that we do must remain just that—ensuring that our streets are safer and making the reoffending rate the measure of our success. Although it is clear to me that we shall not persuade the Government of our remaining arguments, I welcome the changes that they have made and I am glad to have the opportunity to put those concerns on record.
	I encourage the Government to measure the efficacy of the new proposals as they pass into law. We need to monitor closely the success or otherwise of the new powers. That means measuring the rate of reoffending. We need to understand what punishments are given alongside fines and conditional cautions—if fines alone are not given—and the range of conditional cautions. Without knowing that, we will not understand the impact on the reoffending rate.
	We need to understand who chooses a conditional caution and whether those who refuse have to opt for court because they cannot afford the fine. It is important to measure those aspects. Only with such monitoring can we begin to understand whether the changes bring success. Success means safer streets and changed behaviour, not ticked boxes.

Douglas Hogg: I want to direct hon. Members' attention to a small point that arises in amendment 5E. Subsection (1) would provide that a financial penalty may be attached to a conditional caution for any offence that the Secretary of State prescribes by designation. The Solicitor-General has been kind enough to confirm that the designation will happen through the negative, not the affirmative, resolution procedure. That means that, through negative resolution procedure, the Secretary of State can put into a statutory instrument any offence that he may wish to designate. The effect is that the Government can drive up the gravity of the offences that the financial penalty covers.
	The Solicitor-General fairly said that he did not wish domestic burglary to be included in the designated category of offence. However, I believe that he would concede that his successors could include domestic burglary or, indeed, grievous bodily harm, if they were so minded, in the designated class of offence to which the financial penalty attaches. They could do that by the negative procedure.
	Anyone who is familiar with the procedures of the House knows that the statutory instrument procedure is imperfect because the House either accepts or rejects a statutory instrument in its entirety. I can contemplate a statutory instrument that includes several offences, some that hon. Members would not wish to be included in the designated category and others that they would be content to welcome into it. However, we could not pick and choose because of the procedure.
	In a spirit of compromise, I ask the Solicitor-General to publish a draft of the statutory instrument before it is formally laid so that hon. Members and, indeed, anyone who dissents from the proposition that one specific offence should be included in the draft statutory instrument, could object at that early stage rather than being obliged to try to reject the whole list by a negative prayer. I do not like the procedure, but if we must have it, an undertaking to proceed in the way in which I suggest would go some way towards dealing with the objections that I have always had to the overall procedure.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for the way in which he set out his views. There has been much discussion of the matter. I realise that he and the Liberal Democrats have concerns about what they perceive to be the principle that the police and the CPS are involved in the investigation and take forward a prosecution but that it is for the courts to dispose of cases. However, we have said here and in another place that procurator fiscal fines have existed for some time in Scotland and that cautions have also been used. They have a long history in this country and there are also fixed penalty notices. I do not want to rehearse those arguments, save to say that I do not accept that the principle exists in the way in which he assumes that it does. I do not therefore believe that we are breaking a great principle. We are proposing a sensible way in which to deal with cases that takes better account of victims' concerns so that their cases are tackled more effectively and quickly, and, I hope, with compensation paid more quickly.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) set out a rather illiberal approach. She appeared to object strongly to cautions, speaking of them as "pay and go" or buying one's way out of criminal convictions. She appeared to insist on people having criminal convictions instead. I suspect that, on reflection, the operation of the conditional caution will cause a different view to emerge from the Liberal Democrats.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about the need to re-examine the way in which we introduce the list of offences that might be suitable for conditional cautions, and suggested that it might be possible to publish a draft at an early stage. We propose to consult about the list of offences and I hope that that will give him and others the opportunity to examine the offences and have a broader discussion about what should be included before we lay the negative resolution. If there are subsequent objections, it will be up to the Opposition to pray against it in the normal way under the negative resolution procedure.
	We have been through a process whereby the Government have set out their views, we have listened to the debate, tabled amendments in another place and listened to the comments made there. It is now broadly accepted that we have gone through the proper process that Parliament goes through in such circumstances and reached a view that we can all accept. Perhaps, in future, we will wish to reconsider the matter and go further. We said that we would like the limit for the financial penalty to be higher. We wanted a figure of £500 but accepted £250 to take account of Opposition views.
	There is room for further discussion but I hope that it can be conducted in the context of ascertaining how the ideas work in practice. Perhaps we can then examine some of suggestions of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the results of some of the pilots and the operation of conditional cautions.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 5C to 5H agreed to.
	After Clause 46
	 Lords Reason: 36B.

John Reid: It would not have the legal status of legislation or part of the treaty. I fully accept that. However, it constitutes a move towards trying to address the problems that interest and worry my hon. Friend. I would guess—I was going to mention this later—that we will be able to say something about the arrangements in three or four weeks' time. I cannot give my hon. Friend the details tonight, but I can tell him that we regard the issue as important, and that we are already addressing it.
	Let me now explain the other benefits of the new treaty, apart from those relating to people who are currently hiding from justice. First, let me draw a clear line. Either we have the treaty or we do not, and I do not believe that justice will be served if we do not.
	The new treaty will define extraditable offences not by a fixed list of crimes, but by a sentence threshold. That has the advantages of flexibility and dynamism to take account of changing circumstances. We are currently hampered by our inability to chase a criminal for a crime not thought of in 1972. We want to ensure that future-proofing is written into the treaty, making it more effective over a period than a treaty listing extraditable offences by name rather than according to a threshold of seriousness.
	The treaty will also allow the extradition of someone who is already serving a prison sentence. For example, at present a murderer serving a whole life sentence in America is highly unlikely ever to be brought to justice for other crimes that he may have committed here. That means that we are selling some British victims of crime short, because they will never see their attackers in the dock. The new treaty will resolve the problem.

John Reid: I take it that the hon. Gentleman objects to the mandatory revision of sentences, release at given points, mandatory reductions in sentences for pleading guilty and so on. I congratulate him on being several months behind me in saying so publicly, and we are this week issuing a consultation on sentencing—[ Interruption.] I will proceed, if the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) can calm down a little.
	Under the new treaty, provided all the other extradition safeguards are observed, law enforcement agencies will be able to extend the charge sheet against the suspect even if the subsequent charges were not on the original extradition warrant. Obviously, that will be helpful in ensuring that justice is fully served. I fail to see how the House could disagree with any of these measures as they are entirely sensible. They have the sole purpose of serving justice, and ensuring justice for victims.
	I mentioned the amendments that we have tabled and why they have been tabled in that form. I am well aware that we have a limited time—

Edward Garnier: It is not true and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, he should have the guts to stand up and defend his position.

Ian Cawsey: I am not allowed to do so.

Edward Garnier: No, and that is just as well.
	Let us analyse what the Government seek to persuade us to agree. They say that the US should be designated as a jurisdiction that does not require a prima facie case to be made unless certain things happen within certain periods. We have just heard from the right hon. and very cynical Gentleman that those things will never happen. So the amendment on designation is cynical, meaningless and hollow.
	Let us concentrate on the more important amendment which deals with forum. The issue of forum is part of the extradition arrangements that exist between the US and several other jurisdictions, not least Ireland, Denmark and some of the Baltic states. Those countries, I suggest, are somewhat less powerful than the UK, or should be, when it comes to exerting influence on the US. The treaty is not of great military significance. It does not decide whether the west will fall or the east succeed. It is a matter of administration to do with the arrangements by which each jurisdiction permits extradition. Why the Government thought it appropriate to continue to defend the treaty come hell or high water, with this cynical collection of amendments in lieu, when it has so many fundamental flaws, defies logic and explanation.
	The Home Secretary sought to rehearse the letter that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) over the weekend, which she saw fit to publish in the newspapers today. Its purport was that unless we do what the Government ask—or demand—we will be letting paedophiles, murderers and other criminals off scot-free. However, the Government failed to remind the House that the treaty deals with what are called the specialty defences. So those accused of paedophilia in the US many years ago lose the defence of the statute of limitations in respect of those offences. If the Secretary of State thinks that he can persuade those of us who have actually thought about this matter for more than a few seconds that to accept the forum provision and give the judges a discretion to consider whether there is a connection between the crime, the criminal, the evidence and the case as a whole—means in return that the US Government will withdraw the specialty reliefs—he demonstrates more about his own negotiating powers than anything else. I invite the House to accept that the Home Secretary, and the Under-Secretary in her letter, have made ridiculous and desperate assertions. They have no knowledge of the details of the cases on which they seek to rely and, in any event, if a prima facie or reasonable cause case can be made, under the old or new treaty, it is highly unlikely that the US would refuse to extradite.

Rob Marris: If the treaty be lost and we go back to the status quo ante, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what the position would be regarding forum, particularly in relation to guidance in contradistinction to a legislated position? Tonight, the Home Secretary promised guidance. Is not that what we had status quo ante?

Edward Garnier: First, given the nature of the Home Secretary's speech, I am not sure that his promises are worth waiting for and, secondly, the implied assertion that the introduction of the forum question would destroy the treaty is false. If it were true the Secretary of State would not have introduced his forum amendment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it; either he accepts that the forum argument is worthy of consideration or he does not. He has told us that of course the collection of amendments is utterly bogus and—I suggest—intellectually dishonest. I am afraid that he will be taken at his word: by the nature of his amendments, he has assumed that forum should be included, and we agree. He has followed our suggestion and I am very happy with that. The only point on which we differ is implementation and its timing.
	The Home Secretary has disarmingly honestly, but cynically, admitted that he has absolutely no intention of complying with his implementation timetable, so I do not see why we should allow him to get away with one thing and not the other; he must accept—

Edward Garnier: No, I shall not give way. The Home Secretary spoke for 25 minutes in a 45-minute debate and other Members want to speak—[ Interruption.] There is no point in the Home Secretary mumbling away; he sauntered into our debate the other day and he has done so again today. The House takes the issue rather more seriously than he does. The House takes justice and fairness rather more seriously than he does and it will not be persuaded by the ridiculous and utterly desperate arguments put by him in today's debate, and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North in her letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, that if we do something we shall destroy the whole relationship between us and the United States. That is a feeble and ridiculous argument, and I urge the House to resist it and the Home Secretary's rather tiresome blandishments.

David Heath: Even in the brief time available for the rest of the debate, I want to welcome the fact that the Home Secretary came to the House this evening to give us the benefit of his views. However, I hoped that he would use the opportunity, first, to apologise for the fact that his predecessor had concluded such a hopelessly unequal Bill. Secondly, I hoped he would say that he recognised the deficiencies of the treaty but that there was scope for renegotiation, which he was prepare to undertake, and that he would then come back to the House with a greatly improved treaty. Thirdly, I hoped he would say that he recognised the deficiencies in the House's protocols for dealing with ratification of treaties and that he would hold talks with the Leader of the House to ensure that we had a better way of looking at treaties in future so that such things would not occur again.
	Sadly, we have heard none of those things from the Home Secretary, which is hardly surprising, because it was well trailled in advance that today was the day when he would lead an assault on the Tories for being soft on crime. If that is what he chooses to do, we have no means of stopping him in the context of this important consideration of Lords amendments; but if his way of exercising his choice is to present in lieu of the Lords amendments words that he admits are entirely bogus and have no effect, and to ask the House to conclude that that is a satisfactory response to those in another place who are trying desperately to improve the law of the land, he does a disservice to the House. Indeed, he holds the House and the other place in contempt, which is a most unfortunate state of affairs.
	As the House knows, we have always argued against the treaty because we believe that it contains fundamental inequalities. We have voted against it from the outset because we believe that it needs to be renegotiated. We have not called for its early ratification because we do not believe in ratifying a treaty based on such unequal terms, and we are no more satisfied with it now than we were in the first place.
	The Home Secretary has at least been prepared to consider forum, if not in his amendment at least in the assurances he gave the House, but assurances are not enough. We need a successful outcome to the negotiations, but they can be held only in an appropriate legislative framework, which is not provided by the words he urges the House to accept. Until he proposes an appropriate form of words, we can only resist his position.
	I want to allow some time for others to speak so this is my last point: it is preposterous to suggest that those who argue against the treaty for sound legal and constitutional reasons do so to give succour to those who break the law and avoid due process in the United States or in this country. That is not the case and it is inappropriate to suggest it. If the Home Secretary's argument rests solely on the removal of the statute of limitations in the treaty, he needs much firmer grounds to argue his case in this place.

John Denham: The debate has revealed a surprising degree of ad-hocery in our extradition arrangements with a great many countries, not just with the United States of America. Perhaps the point of principle on which Members need to dwell before the vote is whether the treaty should be wrecked on the basis of a wider flaw in many of our extradition treaties, especially in relation to forum and what should be done when a case could be tried in one or two jurisdictions, or worse, when somebody is judged not to have a case to answer in this country but is still subject to extradition requests—not only from the US but from many other countries.
	One of the things that we have achieved in the debate is the promise of guidance and, at least in relation to the United States, a clear set of criteria and a process whereby the decisions will be judged. I have to say that many of us would have preferred some judicial oversight of the process, but I have it in writing from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and we have heard today from the Home Secretary that to insert those clauses would mean that we made this country ridiculous in its conduct of international diplomacy and international agreements. We should not take that step this evening.
	There are many gains to be had from the treaty. The arguments about reciprocity that we discussed in previous debates do not carry the weight that Opposition Members gave them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that on this occasion brevity becomes the hon. and learned Gentleman.
	 It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [24 October].
	 Question agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Government amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [24 October].

Lords amendments: Nos. 81 to 84.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendments and proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.— [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 204.

Lords messages considered.

Stephen Ladyman: Hon. Members will recall that during consideration of this Bill in another place, a clause was added in Committee that aims to allow safety camera partnerships to retain and use surplus fine income from speeding offences to fund other transport measures, including road safety. The clause was unequivocally overturned by the Commons in Committee, when I explained that new arrangements were being introduced for the integration and funding of safety cameras from 1 April 2007, resulting in local authorities receiving additional money for road safety through the local transport plan process; they would receive some £440 million over four years. That will replace the current netting-off arrangements, so there will no longer be surplus income as envisaged by the clause added in another place.
	The clause, however, was reinserted by the other place when the Commons amendments were considered last week. It is defective in a number of respects. For example, it refers to
	"income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2)".
	That is inaccurate, and it could extend to income from offences detected by police officers as well as by cameras. The clause also uses several undefined terms such as "a safety camera scheme".
	The legislation is at a very late stage, and we are under an obligation to save a vital Bill. Given that their Lordships are keen that the Government should have the power to make such regulations, we have tabled amendment No. 1, which is workable and is not technically defective, thus meeting their Lordships' wishes. In the event that the powers were used, that would be contingent on having a mechanism to ensure that the regulations neither created incentives for partnerships to drive up the level of fines to secure additional income nor penalised partnerships that succeed in improving compliance with speed limits, thus reducing the income from speed cameras, by allowing them less money for other road safety purposes. None the less, I reiterate our obligation to this important Bill, and I therefore urge the House to support the motion.

Owen Paterson: In recent years, there has been a spectacular increase in penalty notices. I received a reply to parliamentary question 95511 on 2 November that showed that offences detected by camera had increased from 288,600 in 1997 to 1,786,000 in 2004. There has been a commensurate increase in income. In 2000-01, seven partnerships received just over £10.3 million and spent just over £8.9 million, leaving a balance of £1.3 million for the consolidated fund. In 2003-04 receipts were £112.2 million and expenditure £91.8 million, leaving an astonishing £20.4 million for the Chancellor. Not only have receipts increased tenfold but the balance going to the Chancellor has increased from 13 per cent. to 18 per cent. of total receipts, so a substantial sum has not gone towards road safety.
	Tiny sums can have a dramatic impact on road safety. I cannot resist giving the House some information that I received from Shropshire at the weekend, where the installation by Shropshire county council of only £12,000-worth of interactive signs at Sandford bends, where there is a mediaeval bridge, has had spectacular results. In the three years prior to installation, there was an average of three recorded personal injury accidents a year. Since the signs were installed, however, there have been no such accidents at the location. The average cost per accident is £106,710 and, in addition, the cost of repairs to the bridge was £120,000 in 2002 and £40,000 in 2003 and again in 2004. Furthermore, queues, which were sometimes a mile long, have been avoided.
	I am very pleased that the Minister has come round to the idea of handing the money to local agencies, which can spend the sums on small schemes such as that which I have mentioned. This afternoon, I had a very constructive meeting with my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, who has done sterling work in the other place, and the Minister's counterpart in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham. He confirmed what the Minister said: that the intention is to reinstate clause 2, as the Government accept that they were defeated in the Lords, and that they intend to deliver the intended aims of the Opposition clause. We are pleased that the Government have made such a concession for, I think, the first time in respect of this Bill. However, it is ironic—I cannot resist pointing this out—that this is the one clause to which they let us make an amendment, before they withdrew it.

Greg Knight: Those of us who have been involved in the debate on these measures in Committee and subsequently are pleased to note that the Minister has become more good-natured as the debate has progressed. In fact, I suspect that if our consideration of the Bill could have stretched over two years, we might have persuaded him to have accepted more amendments.
	I think that the whole House will welcome his comment that he had no intention of driving up fine income in these provisions. But what ring-fencing will exist as a result of the Government amendment? Will it be the same as in the Lords' original amendment, namely
	"to fund local transport facilities or related environmental improvements"?
	Some of us would have concerns if the definition of "related environmental improvements" could include road closures. We hope that that is not the primary purpose of the amendment.

Stephen Ladyman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
	The key point is that none of us wants cameras to be deployed simply for the purpose of raising money and increasing income. It is key that if the powers that we have introduced in this amendment, which the Lords wanted us to introduce, were used, in order to stop that happening, it would be necessary for some other mechanism to be used in conjunction with that. The Government do not believe that the powers are necessary because we have already achieved the objective that their Lordships wanted in the first place by different means. What we have done is to end from 1 April next year the so-called netting-off arrangements—the scheme whereby camera income could only be used for more cameras and any surplus went to the Treasury. We have said that the total sum of the fines which will go to the Treasury in future—approximately £110 million a year—will be paid back to the local authorities as road safety grants. Therefore, while the changes introduced by the Government are in place, it is correct that the money going back to the councils can only be used for road safety and measures relating to that.
	As the Treasury has agreed to that amount of money for four years, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is also absolutely right that what the Government have done is an improvement on what their Lordships intended, because that income is guaranteed—and there are signs that the fine income is starting to go down. However, the Treasury will carry on paying—at this rate, for the next four years—for road safety improvements. Therefore, more of the sort of road safety improvements that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned will be able to take place than would be the case if we were to use the powers that we are accepting that their Lordships want us to put in the Bill.
	Nevertheless, their Lordships were keen for this power to be in the Bill because they felt that that was necessary. To make sure that we demonstrate compromise in our willingness to get this Bill through, we are prepared to correct their Lordships amendments, and to accept them. I hope that, on that basis, the House can support our amendment.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof agreed to.

John McDonnell: It would be nice to have clarity on this point. During the last discussion, the House was quaking in its boots at the risk of UN action and of EC infraction proceedings, and we were told that the Italians were going into the ring with the EU. We now know that in fact, all that they have received is a letter, so no infraction proceedings are taking place and it is not incumbent on this Government to proceed with the measure.

Stephen Ladyman: First, we should ask ourselves what it is we would be able to do tonight. I take it that the Italians are applying their regulations only to Italian-registered vehicles that do not have regulation 48 approval; otherwise, I feel sure that aggrieved owners would have appealed on the ground that the law is being breached. Therein lies the answer to my hon. Friend's question: even if infraction proceedings were not started, any lorry owner who did not want to fit the tape would have legal grounds for objecting to our forcing them to do so. So the sensible thing to do is to use the mechanisms that we agreed to a long time ago in an international treaty for mandating use of this tape. I am prepared to assure the House that I will do everything that I can to ensure that the process is as rapid as possible, that the tape is fitted as quickly as possible, and that people purchasing new trucks fit it voluntarily to as short a time scale as possible. That way, we will achieve the same objectives without having to break the terms of our treaty. My hon. Friends might think that that is not an important matter as it affects this subject. Perhaps so, but there will be times when issues arise that affect this country's economy and competitiveness, and when we will want to stand by such international treaties. We would be in a very weak position in doing so if it could be shown that we ignore such treaties when we think that they relate to trivial matters.

Owen Paterson: We are making glacial progress on this extraordinary issue. We are talking about £100-worth of sticky tape going on to trucks, which would have a dramatic impact. There is complete unanimity on the benefit of this measure and the urgency of the need for it. The most recent Department for Transport statistics show that fatalities from road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles increased by 8 per cent. in 2005 to 486—15 per cent. of the total number of fatalities from road accidents.
	Research shows that this measure does work. Research by the university of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late. The same study also found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced the number of accidents involving trucks and passenger cars in poor visibility conditions by 95 per cent. According to the European Commission road safety action programme for 2003 to 2010, one of the main causes of road accidents is poor visibility. The Minister has already cited the US statistics, but why is the European Commission determined to bring this measure in eventually? He contradicts himself. US statistics show that rear-impact and side collisions can be reduced by 41 per cent. The Loughborough report, which the Minister also cited, showed that ECE 104 markings would prevent 385 collisions each year, so if the Government hang around until 2010 to introduce this measure, 1,155 preventable collisions could occur.
	There is pretty fair unanimity on this issue. The Minister said that this is a good idea and the other Opposition parties are also in complete agreement. We have strong support, moreover, from Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who offered strong support in Committee.
	This is a phenomenon that I had never heard of before until I dug it out this weekend—one that the EU Parliament described as an
	"international quasi-legislation/comitology mechanism".
	Let me explain it in simple terms. The UN-ECE agreement goes back to 20 March 1958, and regulation 104—I am trying to keep this brief—sets the technical standards. The regulation originated with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, on which sit 57 countries. I am watching the Minister carefully to see whether he is still with me. The regulation was made under the aegis of —[Interruption.] Well, the Minister, as I shall explain in a few moments, still does not have a complete grip on this issue. The regulation was amended on 5 October 1995, revised again—including via amendments that we will discuss in due course—and came into force on 16 October 1995.
	The then transport Minister, Mr. Jamieson, said that the UK became a signatory to UN-ECE regulation 104 on 15 January 1998, but that the European Commission is investigating the costs and benefits of a mandatory requirement and may make proposals when its research is complete, and that the Department for Transport will await the results of the research before taking a view on whether any such proposal should be supported. As I understand it, that remains the Government's position. We are obliged to allow on to our roads any vehicle that holds an EU type approval certificate, and since the EU has not adopted regulation 104, there is no requirement for the holder of a type certificate to fit retro-reflective marking. The problem seems to arise from UN regulation 48, which concerns implementation, and the fact that the type approvals are not obligatory. With regard to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices, there is a further complication from supplement 7 to the 02 series to regulation 48, which actually introduces retro-reflective markings as a specific device for installation on certain categories of vehicles. I am glad to see that the Minister is still nodding slightly.
	The installation of such markings is, however, optional—that is, at the manufacturer's discretion—and the form of the markings is not specified in detail.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister did not go into the detail that I did; I can assure the House of that. The latest development is that Germany has submitted a proposal to the UN-ECE working party on lighting and signalling to amend regulation 48 to make it mandatory according to the R104 specification.
	In summary on this extraordinarily complex legislative morass, the UN makes it optional and, because the UN has made it optional, the EU cannot make it mandatory. If the EU has not made it mandatory, we cannot make it mandatory as we will be in breach of EU law, so Germany is now looking to the EU to amend UN regulation 48 to make it mandatory rather than optional.
	I am delighted that the Minister is still with us, because he has just contradicted himself. In Committee, at column 148 on 23 March 2006, he said that our amendment, which had come from the Lords requiring markings to be mandatory, would make the clause "redundant and perhaps illegal". However, today he said that it was "at best uncertain" and he kindly sent me a copy of a letter that he sent to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Here we are making glacial progress and, in that letter, the Minister said that the EC letter was
	"a likely precursor to infraction proceedings"
	but, sadly, he did not include the EC letter. However, he included an absolutely standard report back from the European Commission that is standard procedure when a member state puts forward proposals for implementing legislation in its own country in an area where the EU already has competence. This is not the infraction letter that the Minister hinted it was; it is just a standard letter under what is known as the standstill period.
	What is incriminating for the Minister, however, is the last document that he included with the letter to the hon. Member for Stroud, which, to put it bluntly, is a big let-down. The Minister said:
	"The UK does not believe that Italy can mandate the vehicles registered in their national territory are fitted with retro-reflective tape."
	He showed no support to the Commission for what he has just said in the Chamber. What he could have done was enthusiastically support the measure, which many Labour Members, we and the other Opposition parties do, and he could have gone into the technical details of how its implementation could be speeded up. At the moment, we are heading towards 2010 with a measure that all sides agree to be sensible and one that will potentially save lives. However, in the Government's formal response to the European Commission, the Minister is not being helpful at all. He is actually undermining the Italians.
	There has been a lot of talk about the Italians being subject to infraction proceedings, but there is no evidence in the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Stroud that the Commission has taken any action at all against the Italians and nor have the United Nations authorities. I have an e-mail from Juris Dzintars, who is the secretary to the GRB, GRE and GRSG transport division—technology section—at the United Nations in Geneva. It is very simple. It says:
	"In this particular case, the secretariat has not been informed about complaints on the Italian national legislation"
	The last word I leave to Anna Borràs of the European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit F/1, automotive industry, who says quite clearly that
	"in our view the Italian measures would not infringe the directive."
	This issue is a real tangle; it is absolutely not clear. We have gone into the issue in some detail and it is obvious that the Minister is not clear—he has changed his tune through the Committee stage and modified it very much this evening. We propose sticking to our guns so that he "reflects"—I do not want to make a pun—on the issue overnight. He has little time left and we would like this tiny, common-sense measure dealing with £100 of sticky tape that can save lives to appear in the Bill. The UN intends that this material should be applied to trucks and it is absolutely intended by the EU that it should apply to all trucks by 2010. The Italians have taken unilateral action despite the Minister waving flags and raising alarums and scarums.

Owen Paterson: That is probably a very pertinent point and my hon. Friend speaks with more knowledge than I do, having sat in the European Parliament.
	My point is simple. The measure is intended by UN legislation that goes back several years, it is intended by European legislation, a member state has gone ahead and another member state is pushing the Commission very hard to make the provision mandatory. It is regrettable that we see from the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Stroud that he is not pushing as hard as he says he is tonight. I would like to vote against the Government so that he really thinks overnight and comes up with something better in the Lords in the morning.

David Drew: And I hear the question from the Opposition. That is my question, too: when? The notion of 2010, when we are potentially taking an action against the Italians for introducing the measure already, does not really give a great deal of confidence that somebody else could not try to derail things. The private sector might say, "Hang on a minute. These people aren't really serious about this. Why should we put this tape on?". We are talking about new vehicles, but we should go much further and do things retrospectively. For £100, we may save lives.
	I am sure that this is not the most important measure in the Bill and I am the last person to want to try to threaten the Bill. It is vital that we get the Bill through as soon as possible, if not tonight. The sad thing is that a minor measure, which everybody is in favour of, is potentially threatening the Bill for the simple reason that we are questioning not what the Government are doing, but what the EU Commission might do subsequently. Is the Commission likely to take infraction proceedings? As the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, it will take a great deal of time before the matter gets to court. More importantly, if the UK were to come in behind the Italians, one would hope that that would drive the measure forward even more quickly rather than our causing the Italians problems. That is my dilemma. I cannot see any reason why we should not be four-square behind trying to push this measure forwards as quickly as possible, rather than timidly saying that it is up to the EU Commission to get things in place by 2010, which after all is likely to be only three years after the measure comes into some form of negotiated stance. I am willing to be led forward in the hope that we can get this measure put in the appropriate place and get clarity, but at the moment I am still somewhat confused.

Stephen Ladyman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am struggling to find new ways of saying what I think I have said at least 40 times before. I believe that the legal position is quite clear. An amendment to UNECE regulation 48 to mandate fitting the tape to trucks seeking regulation-48 certification has been adopted and is expected to come into effect. People have bandied about the date of 2010 because that was our estimate of when the process might be completed, although we think that it might well happen a little earlier. I make a commitment to my hon. Friends and others that I will do everything in my power to bring the date forward—certainly to 2009 and, if possible, earlier. However, until that amendment is in force, we in the UK must continue to register trucks that are approved under the existing regulation 48, whether or not they are fitted with retro-reflective tape.
	If we were to agree with their lordships, we would be in a position in which we might be making a law that people could just ignore. Even if infraction proceedings were not taken against us and even if someone did not choose to sue us somewhere down the line, people could just ignore the law and we would be in no position to enforce it.

John Gummer: Is not the Minister a victim of better-not-Minister syndrome? Has not some civil servant said to him, "Better not do this, Minister. Better leave it as it is."? Is it not time that the Minister said, "Let's do it," because, in the end, the measure would not do any harm, but it might do a great deal of good.

Stephen Ladyman: I explained the confusion about that, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to read my comments. However, I shall embellish that and give the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) the assurance that he was seeking. The British Government are not trying to make things difficult for the Italian Government. We have stated that we think that what the Italian Government have done is illegal and unenforceable, but we are not trying to hold them up or to force anyone to begin infraction proceedings against them. We want the Commission to get up a head of steam to make legal what the Italian Government have done because we, like everyone else, want the tape to be mandated, although we do not think that it will have the dramatic safety benefits that others have claimed. The Government's good will was shown by the fact that we commissioned the Loughborough research to find out whether we should support the tape. The answer was that we should, although the tape's effects could not be quantified because the easy experiments were those that could be carried out in circumstances in which there were no conspicuity aids on vehicles. However, as a consequence of the research, we have tried to get the measure through the European Commission. It will be in place by 2009 or 2010, and I am giving the House an assurance that I will do everything that I can to shorten that time scale.

Greg Knight: Before the Minister finishes his speech, will he deal specifically with my point? If clause 16 were deleted from the Bill, would he need any further authority from the House if the European Commission decided to implement the measure in future? If he would require further authority, why does he not leave clause 16, which relates only to making regulations, in the Bill? There would be no time limit if he were to resist Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B disagreed to.
	 It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on Commons amendment No. 6.— [Dr. Ladyman.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Mr. Frank Roy and Mr. Andrew Slaughter; Dr. Stephen Ladyman be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [ Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 19th June 2006 (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [ Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Lord amendments considered.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Companies Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 6th June, 5th July and 17th October 2006 (Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme), Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2) and Companies Bill [Lords] Programme (No. 3)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Margaret Hodge: I hope that the debate can be brief because the issues have been debated at length in both Houses over a long period of time. As I explained when the amendment was tabled in this House, the original wording was not about companies providing lists of suppliers or customers or any other people with whom they have or had a contract, but about reporting significant relationships that are likely to have an impact on the performance or value of the business. It is up to the directors to exercise their judgment about what should be incorporated in the business review. They need include only information to the extent necessary for the understanding of the development, performance or position of the company.
	The amendment does not impose a disproportionate burden on business and the costs, which are based on costings that the CBI provided to us when the operating and financial review was being considered, are minimal. However, in the discussions that have taken place in the past couple of weeks, I was persuaded by representatives of the pharmaceutical industry that there was a possibility that the information could be misused by animal rights extremists. Amendments were tabled in another place on that basis. The intention behind the revised amendments is to deal with legitimate concerns around animal rights terrorism.
	The amendment is framed, first, to exempt directors from disclosing information about a person if disclosure would, in their opinion, be seriously prejudicial to the interests of that person. The prejudice might be direct or indirect. Secondly, disclosure must also be contrary to the public interest. That requirement is to ensure that exclusion is not used to cover up wrongdoing on the part of the contractor. For example, if a supplier has supplied dangerous goods and may have been negligent in so doing, it is clearly not in the public interest to conceal his identity.
	We are not trying to exempt the directors from reporting information that would be prejudicial merely to the company. That would create an unjustifiable let-out. It is not necessary to do that to ensure that the interests that we want to protect are covered.
	The business review is an important matter. We have had long, lively debates on it throughout the Bill's passage. Clearly, some have argued for more detailed prescription in the requirements but others—on the Opposition Benches—have argued for weakening the provisions. We have struck the right balance and I hope that we will agree today that we can put the matter to rest.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Bill is a more comprehensive version of the measure that was first presented to the Lords on 11 January this year. It is in three volumes rather than two and has 1,264 clauses instead of 885. It has broken many records along the way. One must be the 1,029 amendments that were pinged back to the Lords last week. The fact that only a few amendments have been ponged back to the Commons shows that they were mainly uncontentious. Indeed, most were needed to consolidate the Bill with company legislation from 1985, 1988 and 2004.
	We had called for such consolidation for four years. However, the harsh implications of the Government's decision to implement that just before the second Chamber's Report stage have been unfortunate for the legislative process. Despite a valiant and expert effort by the Bill team, we have a good example of how making law on the hoof is clearly unsatisfactory. I sincerely hope that the rush will not come back to haunt the Government.
	Without much pleasure, let me deal with amendments Nos. 245A and 245B. I shall begin by putting the debate in context. The business review was born of the Government's cack-handed approach to the operating and financial review. When the Chancellor scrapped the OFR in November 2005, without consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry or Ministers, let alone any stakeholders, the Government left companies with a bill for the OFR preparations running into millions of pounds.
	The business review was introduced to fulfil the EU directive requirements. After much bungling by the Government, we reached a position that was broadly supported by the Government, business and the Conservative party. On Report, we discussed at length our commitment to encouraging companies to develop their corporate responsibility and we accept that the business review, with its requirements for listed companies to report on environmental and community issues, should play a role in that process.
	However, at the last moment, namely two days before the final debate of the final parliamentary stage, the Government tabled amendment No. 822, which required directors to provide
	"information about persons with whom the company has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the business of the company".
	We were immediately contacted by numerous stakeholders, such as the Association of British Insurers, representing investors, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Quoted Companies Alliance, the CBI, representing large and small companies and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, representing pharmaceutical companies. They all believed that, whatever the issue, such a method of making significant policy change was unacceptable. Let it not be forgotten that the Bill has been eight years in the making and the business review provisions had been agreed after months of significant debate. To throw that aside by tabling the amendment, with one and a half day's notice was, to stakeholders, let alone Opposition parties, staggeringly irresponsible.
	On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who is present in the Chamber, voiced the Opposition's concerns about the broad scope of the amendment. She queried what the Government wanted companies to disclose, as the amendment was so vague that it provided little guidance on business reporting obligations. Stakeholders were already attempting to calculate the cost to companies in terms of compliance and related legal advice and guidance. The Government spin machine had stated that the provision would apply to suppliers. Clearly, however, it applies much more widely—to customers and possibly even to bank arrangements or arrangements with Government.
	Following Report, and amid the understandable storm of controversy over the Government's actions, business representatives met the Government to discuss their concerns. We understand that the meeting did not provide much comfort. The Government stated that, at that stage, the amendment would not be changed. Due to the concern of stakeholders and the vagueness of the wording, and in the light of the Government's intransigence, our noble Friends tabled an amendment to the provision, which introduced a caveat allowing directors to refrain from disclosing information that, in their opinion, would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the company or other persons involved. We were therefore surprised to discover that, having told everyone that there would be no movement on the matter, the Government tabled their own amendment narrowing the scope to allow the omission of information about a person if, in the directors' view, it would be seriously prejudicial to that person and contrary to the public interest.
	We support the position of our noble Friends that the provision should also apply to the company, and that the public interest element should be separated by replacing "and" with "or". The clarification provided by Lord Sainsbury on the Government amendment, and on our counter amendment, was welcome. I repeat, however, that it was all much too late. There has simply not been enough time to review how the provision will work in practice. For instance, can the Minister please advise the House how directors are expected to know what may or may not be in the public interest? Does the provision to omit information about a company apply equally to the holding company or subsidiary of the third party person with whom the company is contracting?
	We have practical problems with the wording as well as with the lack of consultation and we also have conceptual problems. If we look at the speeches on the matter in the other place, we see that Lord Sainsbury's key point was that the amendment will not require lists of suppliers and customers to be provided. As he put it, the requirement would be for "key relationships", not "exhaustive lists". There seems to be some belief among non-governmental organisations and certain Members of both Houses, however, that the provision would provide full transparency. That is plainly not the case, and the Minister should comment on that. Anyone who thinks that the clause will lead to supermarkets having to disclose the suppliers of their 30,000 product ranges, as one Member mentioned in this place, is gravely mistaken. The provisions will affect not the large multinational but the small listed company with a smaller field of operation, whose key supplier or customer might have commercial sensitivity, which might mean that it does not want to disclose such contracts. In stock exchange listing rule terms, where such sensitivities exist on circulars, a discussion with the Financial Services Authority can allow the relevant documents not to be disclosed. In the Bill, however, the provision is a blunt instrument with no such flexibility.

Margaret Hodge: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I will not say much, because we have discussed this issue endlessly. I will merely say that we did not accept the Conservative amendment in the House of Lords because by replacing "and" with "or" we would effectively be saying that any bad news about a company should not be reported, and we thought that that was a bridge too far.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is right: the position is entirely based on the judgment of the director, and for that reason it is not prescriptive. The Conservative spokesmen have resisted prescription, in terms of standards, throughout the Bill's passage; for them now to ignore the fact that without prescription the position is bound to be less clear strikes me as a bit churlish, if I may say so.
	We have endlessly discussed corporate social responsibility in the passage of this Bill. Conservative Members say that they espouse it in theory, but every time that it comes to the practice, they condemn it. Tonight, they condemn it in such a way that they will not even vote against it, which strikes me as being even more wimpish than they have been in the past. However, in the spirit in which we have reached almost the end of this process, I hope that the House will concur with the Lords amendments.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Lords amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.
	After Clause 635
	 Commons amendment: No. 671.

Jonathan Djanogly: Amendment No. 671A refers to a clause put into the Bill by the Government in this House, which was then—confusingly—opposed by the Government in the other place, with the agreement of the Opposition. The right thing has been done in the end. In brief, its purpose was to provide the Secretary of State with new powers to amend the rules on distributions under delegated legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. As Lord Sainsbury said in the other place, there has been much criticism of the rule on distribution following the introduction of the international financial reporting standards and changes need to be made, we believe that delegated legislation is not the appropriate way to amend the rules.
	I join the Minister in commending the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on its speedy work in this area. The Committee indicated strong concern that amendment No. 671, as was, would provide the Secretary of State with extraordinarily wide Henry VIII powers, permitting the Government to amend general principles and detailed issues alike. The subject of distributions has not been properly debated in either House and we agree with the Committee's recommendations in that instance.
	The Committee also highlighted two other aspects—share capital maintenance and company purchases of own shares—on which it had the same concerns, but in those instances we felt, with the Government, that the subject matter was narrow and the subject clear enough to allow for powers to be given. However, we believe that the complex area of distributions must be revisited by Parliament and I was happy to hear the Minister agree. Primary legislation is needed and we welcome Lord Sainsbury's and the Minister's statements to that effect, although we note that no timetable has been given, so if the Minister could give some indication about that—if only for the start of the consultations that will be needed before legislation can be introduced—it would be of help.
	On the basis of what we have heard this evening and the situation we have reached, we shall not be asking for a Division on the amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly: The issue has come back to the House because the other place rejected Government amendments made in the Commons. We are certainly pleased that the Government are giving way on the issue. I congratulate Baroness Noakes and our noble Friends for persevering on the point.
	The amendments would relate the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the professional oversight board of the Financial Reporting Council. The issue was comprehensively debated by their lordships, so I do not want to rerun the technical ins and outs about whether our amendments will aid that disclosure, as we believe—or possibly not, as Lord Sainsbury suggested.
	However, to keep the matter simple and principles-based, as there is mainly agreement, we note that under the combined code audit committees have to review the effectiveness of their audit firm annually. There is growing debate, however, on broadening the base of auditors, so that it encompasses not just the big four, but a wider spectrum of firms. For those reasons and others, it is in everyone's interests that non-executive directors who sit on audit committees should receive the best advice on their auditors that is available.
	Lord Sainsbury noted that, over the summer, the oversight board had consulted on the subject of disclosure by the audit inspection unit, and that it is likely to report on the results soon. Our concern was that the consultation had not been drafted widely enough to cover the subject of the amendments. We appreciate that the amendment is not the end of the matter—it will need to be looked into again—but we are pleased that such a review will start from the basis of disclosure.

David Howarth: I, too, welcome the concession. I am glad that, in the first discussion of the freedom of information legislation under the Companies Bill, we have come out in favour of widening that legislation, rather than of narrowing it—I fear that that might not be the case when the Department for Constitutional Affairs has its way on the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	I am especially glad that the Government have given way and accepted the proposal that the principle of freedom of information should apply to the Professional Oversight Board of the Financial Reporting Council, because Lord Sainsbury's arguments on the subject in the House of Lords were becoming ever more Sir Humphrey-ish. At one stage, he said that the main argument against the proposal was that accountants would become more defensive in the way in which they passed on information to the board, and so would not act in a frank way. That, of course, is an argument against having any freedom of information legislation, and that would be Sir Humphrey's view of that entire field of legislation. There was no evidence to support Lord Sainsbury's view; all that was really meant was that accountants would have to be more accurate, and the board would have to be more accurate in the way in which it came to its judgments.
	It was also argued that board's reports might be exempt from the legislation, and that is true, but that is a matter for the mechanisms of the freedom of information legislation to deal with, and it should not be ruled out, as it was under the Government's original proposal. I am glad to join in the consensus on the very last amendments to a very long Bill.
	 Question agreed to.

David Lidington: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 people from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) about our local health services. I pay tribute to  The Bucks Herald, particularly its editor, Mr. David Summers and its health correspondent, Mr. Tim Green, for their work on the "Dear Patricia" campaign.
	The petition, which has my full support, states:
	The petition of the citizens of Bucks and others, declares that expansion plans for any community must be supported by improvements to health services.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to provide reassurances that the health infrastructure can cope and detail what improvements are planned to support Aylesbury Vale's growth plan.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Henry Bellingham: I am delighted to secure this Adjournment debate on the important subject of firework nuisance.
	I have a truly remarkable constituent, Teresa Kulkarni, who has been an indefatigable, resolute, determined and passionate campaigner on firework nuisance for many years. She recently collected 129,397 signatures for a petition that calls for an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks, and for fireworks to be restricted to licensed public displays. On Wednesday afternoon, my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and I accompanied Teresa Kulkarni and representatives of other organisations to No. 10, where we presented the petition in two large suitcases—I do not know what security staff thought we were doing. We had to wait until the Japanese ambassador left No. 10 before politely knocking on the door. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not come answer himself, as he was awaiting the arrival of a Head of State, whom he obviously thought was more important. I understand and sympathise, as our petition consisted of many bundles of paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering will testify that it really was a most impressive performance. We handed that huge petition over to the perplexed—and good-humoured—staff at No. 10. Tomorrow night, assuming the Journal Office approves it, I shall present a copy of the petition that Teresa Kulkarni presented to No. 10 to the House. However, tonight I am fortunate in having secured this Adjournment debate, because I am very concerned about firework nuisance. I have every sympathy with the outstanding determination and tenacity of my constituent, Teresa Kulkarni. She is concerned about the impact that firework nuisance is having on hundreds of thousands of people throughout the land.
	We all know that the firework season is getting ever longer, and we all know that fireworks have a very damaging impact on people, structures and animals. I want to discuss those categories. When I describe to Members some of the examples that have been brought to my attention of the level of nuisance that occurs, they will realise that there are problems not only in a few isolated cases, but across the country.
	I received an e-mail this morning from Teresa Kulkarni about last night—5 November. She said that she had been to a house in King John avenue in King's Lynn where there is a large rocket-stick wedged in a hole that it made in the guttering. The gentleman who owns the house was out at the time, and the rocket landed in the guttering near to the room where he keeps his computer. That is a frightening example of what can happen during the firework season. Let me give another example: at 4.30 yesterday, a firework rocket landed on the roof of a house in Springwood in my constituency.
	My researcher, Mr. Harry Buxton, joined me recently on an internship. He was travelling on a 211 bus along the King's road. As the bus stopped at a junction, a very large firework exploded in front of the windscreen. The bus driver was forced to take evasive action and swerved right across the junction; he cut across the oncoming part of the highway. Mercifully, there was no car or pedestrian in the way of the bus, but if there had been, there undoubtedly would have been a very unpleasant accident.
	I have some other examples. On 2 November 2006, there was a headline, "Two injured in bus firework blast". The report states:
	"A man and a young child have been treated in hospital after a firework exploded on a bus."
	When fireworks go off in confined spaces, they can have a devastating impact.
	Members know that we are not allowed to use props in this House, but if I could use a prop, I would hold up a photograph of an "ER" post box located on Holbeach bank. It is a traditional cast-iron post box that would probably originally have had a "GR" sign on it, before it had an "ER" sign. On Sunday 29 October, a hooligan put a powerful banger into that post box, and it was absolutely ripped apart. If anyone had been in the vicinity, they would have been seriously injured, because shrapnel flew across the road. Indeed, all the mail in the post box was seriously damaged, and some of it destroyed.
	I have looked at other headlines, and things get worse. In the past week, there have been several incidents of fireworks being posted through people's letterboxes. I have an example that happened in Redditch. The article states:
	"Police are investigating an arson attack on a house after a lit firework was pushed through a letterbox, causing damage estimated to cost £600."
	A newspaper headline from Rushden in Northamptonshire, which is near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), said, "Letterbox firework scorches door." The article continued:
	"Police are investigating an arson attack after a lit rocket was posted through the letterbox"
	of someone's house. A headline dated 29 October, concerning Victoria road, Wellingborough, said, "Letterbox firework damages shop."
	The article continued:
	"An investigation has begun after an arson attack."
	A headline from a Nuneaton paper, dated 31 October, said, "Yobs throw firework into garage of 93-year-old." A 93-year-old man was taken to hospital after yobs threw a firework into his garage, starting a blaze. A headline from 3 November said, "Firework thrown into restaurant." Four people were arrested over allegations of a firework incident in a restaurant in Peterborough, which is very near my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering.
	That is bad enough—until one considers the individuals who have been badly injured by fireworks. On 3 November, Mr. Robert Mepham, who is 65 and suffers from very bad arthritis, had a firework thrown at him when he was walking near his home in Spinney Hills, Leicester. A firework was also thrown from a car at a postman in Soulton road, Telford, Shropshire; the postman was injured and taken to hospital. Another incident occurred in the west midlands when an individual who was minding his own business walking down the street had a firework thrown at him. It struck him in the face and he was seriously injured. He suffered burns and blistering and blurred vision, and was taken to hospital.
	More than 1,000 people are injured every year as a result of firework nuisance. That is a very serious situation, but there is also a serious impact on animals. I have examined some of the cases involving animals—defenceless creatures that cannot help themselves and pets that have put great faith in human beings. Pets are very loyal. I own a labrador myself, and I have owned horses and cattle in the past. Indeed, I have owned all sorts of pets, and they have great faith in human beings. They trust us, and we owe it to them to act in a completely responsible way toward them. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who was with us last Wednesday when we handed in the petition to No. 10, is involved with an equitation centre and understands horses. Horses, of all animals, show touching faith in we humans.
	According to a survey of veterinarians, every year 4,500 animals are hurt by fireworks and treated for injury, of which 16 are destroyed by vets. I pay tribute to the campaign of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has highlighted the number of firework incidents involving animals. It has a huge amount of documentation on this issue and sent me an excellent briefing entitled, "Keep The Noise Down: reduce that limit from 120 decibels to 97 decibels". It does not want to ban the retail sale of fireworks as my constituent Mrs. Kulkarni does, but it says that there is an urgent need to reduce the noise of fireworks. It takes the view that getting the noise level down by about 23 decibels would have a profound impact, in that it would protect a lot of animals from serious nuisance and disturbance and, in many cases, injury.
	Let us consider some of the animals that have suffered as a result of firework nuisance. I have done some research and looked at the papers over the past few days, and I have some examples here. One headline describes how a "Prize dog dies in firework scare". The report continued:
	"A sheepdog which represented England in trials is run over and killed after being scared by fireworks. Skerry jumped an 8ft fence".
	A roe deer or red deer stag would have trouble jumping an 8-ft fence, but Skerry managed to do so and ran into a passing car and was killed.
	Another story on 23 October is headlined, "Pet cat abused in a firework horror". The article went on:
	"A cat was shot dead with an air rifle and then had its abused with a lit firework in West Yorkshire."
	In another case, on 21 October, an incident took place just across the central belt from your part of the world, Mr. Speaker. In Drylaw, Edinburgh, a headline said, "Cat scarred after firework attack". The report began:
	"A cat is recovering after an attack in which fireworks were taped to its side and set off."
	That is a despicable, appalling and unbelievable attack on an animal.
	I have an example from Kettering in which an article that appeared in the local press said:
	"A loud bang went off and dog bolted. That night the police returned his collar."
	The dog has not been seen since. A headline on BBC Online on 25 October said that fireworks were "turning dogs to drugs". It said that fireworks are scaring, unsettling and psychologically damaging many dogs and cats so much so that they are now being prescribed drugs to cope with explosions.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham is concerned about horses, and there have been there have been several examples of horses that have bolted after being frightened by fireworks that were let off near an equitation centre, stables or fields where horses were grazing. One report said:
	"Fire crews were called to Coltsrock Stud Farm in Pimhole, Bury".
	That was late on Friday night where a horse had bolted. It was not only seriously traumatised, but set on fire and had to be put down.
	In the case of smaller pets, one story tells of how
	"Sick yobs tied a baby gerbil to a firework—then launched it into the sky."
	That case quite a lot of publicity because it was appalling.
	I have some e-mails that were sent to Teresa Kulkarni, my constituent who is a tireless campaigner on the issue. One says:
	"I have a much loved 8 year old Labrador who has suffered from Epilepsy since he was 3 years old."
	Every firework season that dog is in a terribly distressed state. Another e-mail describes how a pet rabbit died from a heart attack on 3 November and another e-mail from someone in the south-west tells how a dog was totally stressed out by the fireworks, bolted and was killed by a car. Another tells how a border collie was frightened by fireworks and was killed, while another describes how a dog went mad as a result of its panic and tried to dig its way under the front door in its attempt to get out of the house. Another example tells of a horse that bolted near Torquay in the west country. It broke the fencing on the stud farm and got on to the road. Only through the grace of God was no accident caused.
	I have given a snapshot of some cases involving animals. They suffer enormously in the firework season——far more than many of us realise. They are defenceless pets and farm animals and every year they suffer enormously.
	The firework season goes on for far too long. We all know that the fireworks season starts on 15 October and goes through to 10 November. That is the period when the sale without licence is permitted. That is a long season. A lot of people buy fireworks one year and store them illegally. Often, the season will start way before the clocks go back and will go on way beyond 10 November, which is the last date on which one can buy fireworks from a shop that does not have a licence. We know that the fireworks season goes on and on. In built-up areas, that can be particularly devastating. Driving in to where we live in south London from Norfolk last night, it was like a civil war. The bangs and explosions went on all night.
	We know that there is legislation. To the Government's credit, Bill Tynan's private Member's Bill became the Fireworks Act 2003. The Fireworks Regulations 2004 flowed from that legislation. I am sure that the Minister will say that there is sufficient legislation on the statute book. He will probably make the point that a number of changes have been made. To be fair to the Government, they have brought in a number of significant initiatives, such as making it much more difficult for anyone under 18 to buy fireworks, bringing in a curfew on the use of fireworks between 11 pm and 7 am and imposing a decibel limit. We had the Fireworks (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which flowed from the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997.
	The Government have taken action and it has to be said that existing legislation is quite tough. For example, I gather that the Explosives Act 1875—it is not a piece of legislation with which I am familiar—makes it an offence to set off fireworks in the street. That is punishable by a fixed penalty notice attracting an upper tier fine of £80. I guess that there has probably been an inflation index. If £80 was the upper tier fine in 1875, that would be equivalent to about £20,000 now.
	We also have the use of general criminal law, health and safety legislation, and environmental health legislation. Of course, it is illegal to let fireworks off in the street, to let fireworks off in an enclosed space if they are going to create a nuisance, and to fire a rocket or fireworks that are going to end up on a neighbour's property. One could argue that the existing law is reasonably tight.
	My point is simple. I strongly believe that the fireworks season goes on far too long. I put a modest suggestion to the Minister: we should have a shorter fireworks season that lasts a limited number of days either side of 5 November. During that period, it would be legal for shops without a licence to sell fireworks, for people over 18 to buy fireworks and to have a firework display in a safe place. We would have a specific fixed season. When I was helping Teresa Kulkarni with her petition, I said to the media that the season could be 10 days either side of 5 November. Teresa is against that idea because she wants an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks. Perhaps we should have a shorter period. It could be, shall we say, eight days either side of 5 November.
	If we had a specific fireworks season, everyone would know where they stood. Under existing law, one would be able to buy fireworks from shops that were not licensed. The police would be able to enforce the law in a focused way and on a much more clearly enlightened basis, because they would know what was happening and could put more resources in. The problem at the moment, with the long season, is that police resources are stretched. Every time my local police are rung up with a complaint about a fireworks nuisance incident or an incident involving an animal being frightened or injured, or a human being injured, of course they try to investigate, but there are so many incidents. The police want a much shorter season because they would then be able to enforce the law more effectively. Furthermore, the rest of the community would exert peer pressure by saying, "We have a limited season during which you can let off fireworks at a private display, but we will have zero tolerance of people who let off fireworks outside that fixed period." Such an approach would be a satisfactory compromise.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is right. Several surveys have been carried out recently. For example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, the Kettering  Evening Telegraph organised a similar poll, which showed that the overwhelming majority of people wanted an outright ban. Many surveys and polls have indicated growing public support for such a ban. I think that it has gone up from an average of roughly 55 per cent. 10 years ago to about the 85-plus mark. That indicates that people are fed up with this nuisance and the police's inability to do anything about it. If the Government do not act to introduce tougher legislation, the momentum behind an outright ban will become unstoppable. However, I would not like that to happen because I am not an arch-regulator. I have always believed in a laissez-faire approach towards many things in life.
	Let me give an example of why it would be hypocritical of me to demand an outright ban. On Friday, my seven-year old boy said that he would like to go to a firework display. Unfortunately, we could not rearrange our plans for Saturday so that we could take him to a large display in a village near where we live, and he was very upset. My wife and I decided that we would have our own private display in my mother's garden. The garden is large and no houses around it would be likely to be in range of falling rockets.
	I went along to Tesco in Gaywood, which is in my constituency, and I was impressed by its arrangements. It had a separate firework kiosk manned by a competent member of staff. After looking at me and deciding that I was over 18, she told me that the shop had a rule in place whereby anyone who looked under 21 would be questioned. The shop was thus being extra cautious about the 18-year-old rule. When I explained that I wanted to buy some fireworks, the member of staff gave me the menu. I was able to buy a box of fireworks for £25, although because there was a buy-one-get-one-free offer, I got about £50-worth of fireworks. My wife also bought some rockets from Sainsbury's. My 17-year-old nephew, Joshua Rowley, who was on his half term, was master of ceremonies at the display. We invited one or two local friends with children the same age as my seven-year-old, and our small family firework display brought huge pleasure to those young children.
	I would not have been able to hold such a display if there had been an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks because I would have had to apply for a licence. There are many people in my position. We do not want to be killjoys, but we are nevertheless worried about what is going on. I do not want an outright ban, but I recognise, appreciate and respect the momentum that is building behind such a ban. That is why I congratulate Teresa Kulkarni on her indefatigable campaign, which many people support. If the Government do not bring in tougher legislation along the lines that I have suggested, the momentum will become unstoppable and we will have an outright ban.
	What I am suggesting is a fireworks season. I leave it to the Minister, who is an expert in these matters, to make proposals. My idea of a season stretching 10 days either side of 5 November may be too long or too short, but if we had a specific fireworks season, surely people would know where they stood, the police would be able to enforce it properly, and everyone would realise that it was a satisfactory compromise.
	Outside the season, a licence would be needed. If, for example, the local parish or village wanted to have a fireworks display outside the season, it would apply for a licence. If King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council wanted to put on a fireworks display during the annual King's Lynn festival, it would apply—to itself, as it happens—to get a licence. If different communities wanted to celebrate community festivals, such as the Chinese new year or Diwali, with a fireworks display, they would apply for a licence. If the Minister's family decided that they wanted to celebrate a family wedding with a few fireworks on the village green or in a safe area, they would have to get a licence to do so outside the season. The application would be straightforward—not bureaucratic, but simple and easily understood by everyone.
	I shall conclude my remarks because we want the Minister to have plenty of time to reply, although I imagine that he will not need the whole time to half-past 10, and because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham, for Kettering, for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) also want to say a few words. What I have done tonight is to illustrate to the House that we have a serious problem. Teresa Kulkarni has raised one of the largest ever petitions in this country on fireworks nuisance. She has gathered a staggering number of signatures—129,387. She is saying that we have to have an outright ban, and I respect and understand her view. I also respect and understand what the Government have done so far: they picked up Bill Tynan's Bill and they are trying to achieve an all-party consensus on the issue. But the nuisance goes on. People are suffering, animals are suffering, and whole communities are having their lives turned upside down. Action is needed. I have suggested a sensible compromise solution to the Minister and I submit that if the Government do not accept my solution, the momentum behind an outright ban will become unstoppable and the pleasure that my young boy experienced on Saturday night at my mother's home will be gone for ever. I look to the Minister to take action very soon.

Charles Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this important debate. I do not like playing the killjoy, and I hate the word "banning". Nevertheless, as we have heard, the fireworks season now continues for six weeks—three weeks before 5 November and three weeks after it. I am sure that, like me, colleagues will have had people coming to their surgeries during the previous week complaining about being kept awake at all hours of the night by firework nuisances, with fireworks sometimes going off until 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning.
	Fireworks used to be a symbol of fun. Yesterday evening, I gathered in Cheshunt park and golf club with tens of thousands of my constituents, and we celebrated a fantastic fireworks display. In the right place, fireworks are absolutely fabulous. On the Rosedale estate, however, they are almost weapons of intimidation. These things are launched at all hours of the day and night, they are thrown into people's gardens and they create a huge amount of nuisance, concern and fear. We also have the spectre of Halloween and trick or treating, which coincides with 5 November at a similar time in the calendar. Several people think that it is amusing to toss fireworks at houses and to intimidate people of all ages, particularly the elderly. I would very much like the fireworks season to be shortened.
	This is a huge problem for the police, who should be provided with more powers to ensure that youngsters who view fireworks and toys as weapons of intimidation feel the full force of the law. I hope that the Minister will talk to colleagues at the Home Office about that. These things are high explosives that kill and maim dozens of people every year; they need to be treated with respect, and those who do not do so should be punished by the law.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for introducing this debate. If I am honest, the issue of fireworks is not one that fills my postbag; indeed, 5 November is not always remembered with the same fondness in my constituency as in other parts of the country, because it has a large Catholic area.
	There is a gap between those who use fireworks responsibly and those who use them in the very worst environments to put fear into people and to cause damage. We need to look to the Government to provide something other than the current laissez-faire position. My hon. Friend's proposition of a season for fireworks is probably the best way forward. I do not believe in banning most things, and I get very affronted by that word. As someone who likes to let fireworks off from time to time and make a good bang, I believe that it is important that individuals should be allowed to enjoy them when necessary—for example, at home with small children. I remember indoor fireworks, which have been banned by the European Union. We should not blanket ban fireworks—they are an important part of celebrations and are used by different religions and communities at different times of the year. While the idea of a season is correct, we need to ensure that local communities or local authorities have control of it.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this timely and topical debate, and I commend his hon. Friends for their support and for taking an interest and taking part in the proceedings tonight. I also offer my commendation to the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Teresa Kulkarni, for her campaign and her collection of 129,000 signatures, which is a considerable number. It is not quite as many as the 4 million signatures presented recently in support of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, but, none the less, that considerable number shows the level of support that she has.
	Over the past week, millions of fireworks have been sold and used in back-garden displays, with hundred of thousands more people attending professionally organised public displays. Contacts that my officials have had with various police forces, fire services and trading standards departments indicate that, so far this year, the bonfire night season has been quiet in relative terms. However, the enjoyment of those millions is threatened, as so often is the case, by the thoughtless, selfish and, on occasion, criminal actions of a minority.
	Fireworks can be fun if they are used in a responsible and sensible manner, but the actions of the minority spoil it for everyone else. It is the minority who continue to let fireworks off in the street, who buy fireworks and give them to under-18s, and who think it funny to let off fireworks in the early hours of the morning, well after the curfew has come into operation, frightening people and animals alike.
	Over the past six years or so, the use and popularity of fireworks has grown. Part of that rise can be attributed to a change in the type of fireworks available to consumers. Large single-ignition multi-shot cakes were virtually unheard of before the millennium. The popularity of those fireworks can be attributed to their safety: they need to be lit only once to provide a display in a box letting off anything from 12 to 200-plus effects. Obviously, this may mean that some garden displays now have more bangs in them, as overall they contain more effects.
	Fireworks do not have to focus on noise, however. Increasing numbers of displays now have a children's display, and the popularity of lower-noise fireworks is increasing. I am told that, on Saturday night, Beckenham Round Table held a hugely popular children's display, which was not made up of large bangs and explosions, before the main display. Such moves are to be encouraged, as they offer a sensible alternative to traditional fireworks. However, they are not everyone's cup of tea because, for many people, much of the enjoyment of fireworks is the noise that they make.
	It is important to state that much of the concern about noise and nuisance caused by fireworks could be avoided if we were all a little more neighbourly and responsible. Simply telling one's immediate neighbours, particularly older neighbours, that one is having a back-garden display so that they can take appropriate action is very easy to do. Similarly, if one is aware of neighbours who have pets or if one lives near stables or a farm, simply alerting the owner allows them to take appropriate action. Those simple steps can drastically reduce the concern and potential harm, especially to animals, caused by fireworks.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk referred to the private Member's Bill on fireworks proposed by the former Member for Hamilton, South, which received cross-party and Government support and became the Fireworks Act 2003. That very important statute has helped us control and reduce the problems associated with the noise and nuisance caused by fireworks. The 2003 Act was implemented via the Fireworks Regulations 2004. Although we monitor the effectiveness of those regulations, I think that it is still rather early to consider updating or replacing them, particularly since in 2005, firework manufacturers and importers as well as retailers were required to comply with a number of new more onerous requirements on the licensing and storage arrangements of premises from which explosives, including fireworks, were stored or supplied.
	The Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a number of new controls that have been widely welcomed by enforcement practitioners. For example, the regulations make it an offence for under-18s to possess adult fireworks in a public place; make it an offence for anyone other than a fireworks professional to possess category 4 fireworks; and require all-year-round suppliers to be licensed. The regulations also create a curfew on firework use between 11 pm and 7 am on most nights of the year, the exceptions being midnight on November 5 and 1 am on new year's eve, the Chinese new year and Diwali night. They create a maximum noise limit of 120 dB for category 3 fireworks, which is likely to be extended to other fireworks as part of the pyrotechnics directive currently being discussed in Brussels.
	The regulations also require suppliers to display a sign indicating that it is illegal to supply adult fireworks to anyone under the age of 18 and they give local licensing authorities the power to request details of all transactions of fireworks over 50 kg of explosive content, including to whom they were supplied, where they themselves obtained the fireworks and the exact weight of the transaction. Finally, in this long but important list, the regulations require importers of fireworks to notify Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of the intended destination of the fireworks to be imported to help ensure that fireworks are destined for legal storage and distribution.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and I will respond later to his suggestion for a licensed period for fireworks displays. I should have expressed my appreciation of the kind words expressed by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and also tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) that the Government supported the private Member's Bill proposed by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), to deal with offences against public sector workers. I am not sure whether that was the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I would like the record to be set straight in that regard.
	As I was saying, this is not where my Department's legislative package of consumer protection ends. We also have the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which were amended in 2004. They deal with issues such as the banning of certain fireworks like bangers, air-bombs and fireworks of erratic flight. They create the minimum age for supply at 18 and require all fireworks sold to the general public to be manufactured in compliance with the British standard—BS7114.
	Alongside all that, the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005, which I mentioned earlier. They require all premises at which fireworks are stored to be licensed or registered with the HSE or the local authority, depending on their size.
	Obviously, it is easy for me to stand here this evening and mention the list of regulations, but none of that would be any good without clarity in legislation and adequate enforcement. For many years, enforcement of much of the legislation was the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments. Now several agencies are responsible. Offences relating to the possession of fireworks and the curfew are enforced by the police, who can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £80. Trading standards officers still check up on retailers to ensure that supply is to over-18s only and that only fireworks correctly marked BS7114 are sold. In many cases, local authorities also check suppliers to ensure that fireworks are being legally and properly stored. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about the positive experience in his local Tesco.
	Again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. I hope that he will be somewhat reassured that we take fireworks, their safety and use most seriously. The Government believe that the new regulations need time to show that they can work. The House has agreed that new regulations are required because there is public disquiet. I assure hon. Members who have contributed that I take those matters seriously and I am sure that that applies to the rest of the Government. Those regulations will be kept under close review. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have appreciated that there is cause for concern—that is the reason for the new regulations. We need time to ascertain whether they will help. If they do not, I am sure that we shall revert to them in due course.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.